Search

Pay-by-weight airfares are an ethical minefield. We asked travellers what they actually think

<div class="theconversation-article-body"> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/denis-tolkach-11345">Denis Tolkach</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/james-cook-university-1167">James Cook University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-pratt-335188">Stephen Pratt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-central-florida-1925">University of Central Florida</a> Imagine checking in for a flight with your two teenage children. At the counter, you are told that your youngest teenager’s suitcase is two kilograms over the limit. You get slapped with a $75 penalty for their excess luggage. This penalty feels arbitrary and unfair. The youngest weighs about 45 kg, and their luggage weighs 25 kg, making their total payload on the flight 70 kg. Their older sibling, on the other hand, weighs 65 kg, and has brought 23 kg of luggage to check in. Their total weight is higher – 88 kg – yet they receive no penalty. Obviously, things aren’t that simple. Charging passengers based on their weight is highly controversial for many reasons. But that hasn’t stopped some airlines <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/466035/should-airlines-charge-passengers-by-weight">experimenting</a> with such policies. Imagine checking in for your flight only to have the staff tell you to <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/plus-size-travelers-slam-airline-seat-policies/index.html">purchase an extra seat</a> as you are a plus-size passenger. You feel discriminated against because you are using the same service as other passengers and your weight is beyond your control. But despite the lived experience of many and hot debate in the media, there has not been a formal study into what passengers themselves think about this matter. Our recently published <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2691">research</a> examined air passengers’ views on alternative airfare policies to understand whether the public finds them acceptable and what ethical considerations determine their views. Though we found a range of ethical contradictions, most travellers were guided by self-interest. <h2>A controversial but important topic</h2> The issue of whether airlines should weigh passengers is an ethical minefield with no easy answers. Despite its sensitivity, the aviation industry can’t ignore passenger weight. Airlines intermittently undertake <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/11/despite-backlash-heres-why-airlines-need-to-weigh-passengers/?sh=5f07623e1bfa">passenger weight surveys</a> as they need to accurately calculate payload to ensure flight safety and estimate fuel consumption. The evidence shows passengers are <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/11/despite-backlash-heres-why-airlines-need-to-weigh-passengers/?sh=5f07623e1bfa">getting heavier</a>. Airlines including the now-defunct <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/466035/should-airlines-charge-passengers-by-weight">Samoa Air</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/23/hawaiian-airlines-american-samoa-weight-passengers">Hawaiian Airlines</a> have taken things one step further and experimented with weighing passengers regularly. Samoa Air, for example, became the first airline to introduce a “pay-as-you-weigh” policy, where the cost of your ticket was directly proportional to the combined weight of you and your luggage. In contrast, Canada has now long had a “<a href="https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/additional-seating-and-one-person-one-fare-requirement-domestic-travel-a-guide">one person, one fare</a>” policy. It is prohibited and deemed discriminatory to force passengers living with a disability to purchase a second seat for themselves if they require one, including those with functional disability due to obesity. To complicate matters further, the issue of passenger and luggage weight is not only ethical and financial, but also environmental. More weight on an aircraft leads to more jet fuel being burned and more carbon emissions. About <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24091-y">5%</a> of human-driven climate change can be attributed to aviation, and the industry faces enormous pressure to reduce fuel consumption while it waits for low carbon substitutes to become available. <h2>What do passengers actually think?</h2> To get a better sense of how the public actually feels about this issue, we surveyed 1,012 US travellers of different weights, presenting them with three alternatives: <ul> <li>standard policy – currently the most widely used policy with passengers paying a standard price, irrespective of their weight</li> <li>threshold policy – passengers are penalised if they are over a threshold weight</li> <li>unit of body weight policy – passengers pay a personalised price based on their own body weight, per each pound.</li> </ul> The standard policy was the most acceptable for participants of differing weight, although the heavier the passenger, the more they preferred the standard policy. This can be partially explained by status quo bias. Generally, people are likely to choose a familiar answer. The threshold policy was the least acceptable. This policy was seen to violate established social norms and be generally less fair. The unit of body weight policy was preferred to the threshold policy, although participants raised concerns about whether it would be accepted by society. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that self-interest played a clear role in determining whether respondents considered a policy acceptable. Younger, male, financially well-off travellers with lower personal weight generally found the alternative policies more acceptable. <h2>An ethical conflict</h2> Alternative airfare policies that are based on passenger weight bring environmental and ethical concerns into conflict. Obviously, the effect isn’t from any one traveller, in particular, but averages over the entire industry. Interestingly, respondents that were more concerned about the environment – “ecocentric” – preferred air fare policies that would reduce the carbon emissions. This made them more open to the controversial alternatives. While the threshold policy was clearly rejected by many respondents as discriminatory, environmental concern played a role in the level of acceptance of the unit of body weight policy. It’s important to apply a critical lens here. These ecocentric travellers were also generally younger and had lower personal weights, so many would benefit from the alternative policies financially. For policymakers overall, our study suggests when it comes to controversial ticketing policies, the public is more likely to be swayed by self-interest than anything else.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/237856/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/denis-tolkach-11345">Denis Tolkach</a>, Senior Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/james-cook-university-1167">James Cook University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-pratt-335188">Stephen Pratt</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-central-florida-1925">University of Central Florida</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/pay-by-weight-airfares-are-an-ethical-minefield-we-asked-travellers-what-they-actually-think-237856">original article</a>. </div>

Travel Trouble

5 ways to make Christmas lunch more ethical this year

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-reynolds-141045">Rebecca Reynolds</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> What we eat matters - not just for our health, but for the planet and other living things too. Most of us know meat consumption <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00358-x.epdf">contributes to global warming</a> and many of us are aware of animal cruelty and human exploitation in global food supply chains. So what are some ways we can use our “fork power” to make our Christmas lunch more ethical this year? <h2>1. Replace your turkey or ham with a vegetarian dish</h2> Vegetarian options are not boring or tasteless — just look at this <a href="https://annajones.co.uk/recipe/squash-chestnut-roast">festive squash and chestnut roast</a>. A plant-focused diet has strong <a href="https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/the-planetary-health-diet-and-you/">environmental benefits</a>. Livestock not only <a href="https://theconversation.com/cop28-begins-4-issues-that-will-determine-if-the-un-climate-summit-is-a-success-from-methane-to-money-218869">produce greenhouse gas</a> when they burp, they take up huge amounts of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9024616/">land and fresh water</a>. Reducing the number of animal products on your plate also reduces the likelihood you are contributing to the suffering of animals. Even though many countries have <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/animal/welfare/standards-guidelines">ethical standards</a> for the treatment of farm animals, these are not always followed, and many of the practices considered legal <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2023-03-28/pig-slaughter-methods-defended-by-pork-industry/102153822">still cause pain and suffering to animals</a>. While cutting out all animal products can be difficult, any reduction in consumption makes a difference. For example, consider swapping out the brie on your Christmas platter for hummus this year. <h2>2. Choose ‘good fish’</h2> Many of us don’t realise fish and other seafood is often sourced unsustainably, negatively impacting ocean ecosystems and wildlife. An Australian organisation called GoodFish produces a <a href="https://goodfish.org.au/">Sustainable Seafood Guide</a>, where you can find out how ethical the fish you buy is. Unfortunately, many salmon products are <a href="https://goodfish.org.au/sustainable-seafood-guide/?q=salmon">not as sustainable</a> as companies claim them to be. In comparison, farmed Australian barramundi, Murray cod, prawns, oysters and mussels, and wild-caught Australian Eastern and Western rock lobsters are classified as better choices. Additionally, an international not-for-profit organisation called the <a href="https://www.msc.org/en-au">Marine Stewardship Council</a> has an “MSC blue fish tick label” certification scheme, which endorses products from well-managed and sustainable fisheries. Have a look for MSC-certified frozen crumbed fish in your next shop. <h2>3. Choose at least one organic item, such as your roast potatoes</h2> <a href="https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/">Organic agriculture</a> aims to produce food while establishing an ecological balance to prevent soil infertility or pest problems over the longer term. It strengthens the dynamics and carbon storage of soil, stops freshwater pollution with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, reduces the use of fossil fuels needed to produce these chemicals, and promotes biodiversity. Yes, organic products are more expensive, but you will hopefully now feel they are worth it (you could also look out for organic produce that is reduced in price during “on special” promotions). <h2>4. Choose Fairtrade chocolate</h2> Of course, humans are heavily involved in the production, packaging and transport of the food we eat every day. Organisations such as <a href="https://fairtradeanz.org/">Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/">Rainforest Alliance</a> aim to improve the lives of rural farmers and workers in developing countries – who otherwise might get unfair deals for their produce and work (these organisations also target environmental issues). You can buy Fairtrade- and Rainforest Alliance-certified products in supermarkets (and elsewhere), such as chocolate, coffee, tea – and even ice cream. Similarly, there are companies called <a href="https://bcorporation.com.au/find-b-corps/">B Corps</a>, or Certified B Corporations. These are organisations that also care about social and environmental issues. B Corp food products can also be found in supermarkets (and elsewhere), and include things like peanut butter and seaweed snacks. <h2>5. Make friends with your freezer</h2> When we waste food, we are wasting the energy, land, water and chemicals that were used during the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food">long process</a> of getting it into your home. Lots of us worry at Christmas about “having enough food for everyone”, and consequently buy too much. Why not talk through your menu plan with someone else before you go shopping, to check that you are not anxiety-buying to feed 50 people (instead of your extended family of ten). But even with calm planning, you may still have leftover food. If this happens, you can get creative with using leftovers on Boxing Day (OzHarvest has some recipes online, including <a href="https://www.ozharvest.org/use-it-up/tips/">Christmas rockyroad</a>), or you can preserve food to eat at a later date using your cool friend, the freezer.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218351/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-reynolds-141045">Rebecca Reynolds</a>, Adjunct lecturer and nutritionist, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-to-make-christmas-lunch-more-ethical-this-year-218351">original article</a>.

Food & Wine

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/evie-kendal-734653">Evie Kendal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Last week, scientists announced that for the first time on record, Antarctic ice has failed to “substantially recover” over winter, in a “once in 7.5-million-year event”. Climate change is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/antarctica-is-missing-a-chunk-of-sea-ice-bigger-than-greenland-whats-going-on-210665">most likely culprit</a>. Petra Heil, a sea ice physicist from the Australian Antarctic Division, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204">told the ABC</a> it could tip the world into a new state. “That would be quite concerning to the sustainability of human conditions on Earth, I suspect.” And in March, a senior United Nations disarmament official <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm">told the Security Council</a> the risk of nuclear weapons being used today is higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Both warnings speak to concerns about Earth’s security. Will our planet be able to support human life in the future? And if not, will humanity have another chance at survival in space? <h2>‘Billionauts’ and how to choose who goes</h2> Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed the rise of the “billionaut”. The ultra-wealthy are engaged in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/billionaire-space-race-the-ultimate-symbol-of-capitalisms-flawed-obsession-with-growth-164511">private space race</a> costing billions of dollars, while <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/12/21/billionaire-space-race-turns-into-a-publicity-disaster/?sh=79056f7e5e4d">regular citizens often condemn</a> the wasted resources and contribution to global carbon emissions. Space – described in the <a href="https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html">Outer Space Treaty</a> as being the “province of all mankind” – risks instead becoming the playground of the elite few, as they try to escape the consequences of environmental destruction. But if we have to select humans to send into space for a species survival mission, how do we choose who gets to go? In Montreal last month, the <a href="https://irg.space/irg-2023/">Interstellar Research Group</a> explored the question: how would you select a crew for the first interstellar mission? A panel led by <a href="https://www.erikanesvold.com/">Erika Nesvold</a>, a co-editor of the new book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reclaiming-space-9780197604793?cc=au&lang=en&">Reclaiming Space</a>, discussed the perspectives of gender minorities, people with disabilities and First Nations groups regarding the ideal composition for an off-world crew. I was on the panel to discuss my contribution to the book, which explores how we can promote procreation in our new off-world society, without diminishing the reproductive liberty of survivors. <h2>The ultra-wealthy and reproductive slavery</h2> The first step in deciding how to allocate limited spaces on our “lifeboat” is identifying and rejecting options that are practically or ethically unacceptable. The first option I rejected was a user-pay system, whereby the wealthy can purchase a seat on the lifeboat. A 2022 Oxfam report showed the investments of just 125 billionaires collectively contribute 393 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year: <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person#:%7E:text=Recent%20data%20from%20Oxfam's%20research,%C2%B0C%20goal%20of%20the">a million times more</a> than the average for most global citizens. If the ultra-wealthy are the only ones to survive an environmental apocalypse, there’s a risk they would just create another one, on another planet. This would undermine the species survival project. The second option I rejected was allowing a reproductive slave class to develop, with some survivors compelled to populate the new community. This would disproportionately impact cis-gender women of reproductive capacity, demanding their gestational labour in exchange for a chance at survival. Neither a user-pay system nor reproductive slave labour would achieve the goal of “saving humanity” in any meaningful way. Many would argue preserving human values - including equality, reproductive liberty, and respect for diversity - is more important than saving human biology. If we lose what makes us unique as a species, that would be a kind of extinction anyway. But if we want humanity to survive, we still need to build our population in our new home. So what other options do we have? <h2>Reproduction and diversity</h2> How can we avoid discrimination on the basis of reproductive capacity – including age, sexuality, <a href="https://theconversation.com/infertility-through-the-ages-and-how-ivf-changed-the-way-we-think-about-it-87128">fertility status</a> or personal preference? We could avoid any questions about family planning when selecting our crew. This would align with <a href="https://www.seek.com.au/career-advice/article/illegal-interview-questions-what-employers-have-no-right-to-ask">equal opportunity policies</a> in other areas, like employment. But we would then have to hope enough candidates selected on other merits happen to be willing and able to procreate. Alternatively, we could reserve a certain number of places for those who agree to contribute to population growth. Fertility would then become an inherent job requirement. This might be similar to taking on a role as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/surrogacy-laws-why-a-global-approach-is-needed-to-stop-exploitation-of-women-98966">surrogate</a>, in which reproductive capacity is essential. But what if, after accepting such a position on the mission, someone changed their mind about wanting children? Would they be expected to provide some sort of compensation? Would they be vulnerable to retaliation? The more we focus on procreation, the less diversity we will preserve in the species as a whole – especially if we deliberately select against diverse sexualities, disabilities and older people. A lack of diversity would also threaten the long-term viability of the new society. For example, even if we exclude all physiologically or socially infertile people from the initial crew, these traits will reappear in future generations. The difference is: these children would be born into a less accepting community. Cooperation will be essential for the new human society – so promoting hostility would be counterproductive. So, what options are left? Using a random global sample to select travellers might alleviate concerns about equity and fairness. But the ability of a random sample to maximise our survival as a species would depend on how large the sample can be. A global sample would minimise bias. But there’s a risk it might yield a crew without doctors, engineers, farmers or other essential personnel. <h2>Random selection versus a points-based system</h2> The best balance between competing needs might be a stratified random sampling method, involving randomly selecting survivors from predetermined categories. Reproductive potential might be one category. Others might focus on other elements of practical usefulness or contribution to human diversity. Another option is a points-based system, whereby different skills and characteristics are ranked in terms of their desirability. In this system, an elderly person who speaks multiple languages may score higher than a physiologically fertile young person, due to their ability to substantially contribute to language preservation and education. This does not entirely eliminate the potential for discrimination, of course. Someone would need to decide which traits are most desirable and valuable to the new human society. However we determine our lifeboat candidates, it should be carefully considered. In our attempt to “save humanity”, we must avoid sacrificing the very things that make us human. <hr /> Evie Kendal is a contributor to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reclaiming-space-9780197604793?cc=au&lang=en&">Reclaiming Space: Progressive and Multicultural Visions of Space Exploration</a> (Oxford University Press)<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210647/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/evie-kendal-734653">Evie Kendal</a>, Senior lecturer of health promotion, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-world-were-coming-to-an-end-what-would-be-the-most-ethical-way-to-rebuild-humanity-off-planet-210647">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Ethical non-monogamy: what to know about these often misunderstood relationships

Imagine Sarah and John have been in a <a href="https://www.queerlit.co.uk/products/rewriting-the-rules?_pos=1&_sid=0287cd7c7&_ss=r">monogamous relationship</a> for five years. Although they love each other, Sarah, who is bisexual, has recently started feeling an attraction to her coworker, Andrea. This has led to several sexual encounters, leaving Sarah feeling guilty. However, she has not talked to John about her feelings or experiences with Andrea. No matter how much you love your partner, it’s common to feel attracted to someone outside of a relationship. Some couples may even want sexual encounters with other people. It can be difficult to navigate these feelings, especially when they conflict with the commitment and promises made in the relationship. While the sex between Sarah and Andrea was consensual, Sarah engaged in non-consensual sex by stepping outside of her monogamous relationship without John’s consent. There is growing curiosity about ethical or consensual <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101468">non-monogamous relationships</a>, particularly among young people. YouGov data found that 43% of millennial Americans say their <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/society/articles-reports/2020/01/31/millennials-monogamy-poly-poll-survey-data">ideal relationship</a> is non-monogamous, even if few are in such a relationship. And a survey commissioned by sex toy brand <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/throuples-restaurants-valentines-day-b2010151.html">Lelo</a>, found that 28% of aged 18 to 24 would consider an open relationship. What makes non-monogamy “ethical” is an emphasis on <a href="https://bettymartin.org/videos/">agreed, ongoing consent</a> and mutual respect. All parties involved are fully aware of the situation and voluntarily agree to participate. Partners are free to change their minds at any time and (re)negotiate boundaries that work for everyone involved. Ethical non-monogamy can take many forms, including <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321986/">polyamory</a>, open relationships and <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/014466606X143153">swinging</a>. These relationships are often <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/01461672221139086">stigmatised</a> and misunderstood. They challenge the traditional notion of monogamy, which is commonly viewed in most western and religious societies as the only acceptable way of engaging in romantic relationships. Yet <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550619897157">research has shown</a> that consensual non-monogamy can have positive effects on relationships and the people in them. People in consensual non-monogamous relationships have <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1088868312467087?casa_token=We5Fp9hOPjQAAAAA:LI0m000j1SwvqGMbCVWekUcZ5z9DfqzuMmUtdIi59-OJiEZJ0_EjxlYq3pU6xcUZr5jIG9vlvXxztA">reported</a> higher levels of sexual and relationship satisfaction and greater <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2011.631571">relational intimacy</a> than people in monogamous relationships. <h2>Misconceptions and stigma</h2> One <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-021-00667-7">stigmatising view</a> is that people in non-monogamous relationships pose a greater risk to their partners’ sexual health. This is based on the assumption that having multiple sexual partners increases the likelihood of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282130422_A_Comparison_of_Sexual_Health_History_and_Practices_among_Monogamous_and_Consensually_Nonmonogamous_Sexual_Partners">sexually transmitted infections</a> (STIs). However, research shows that people in open and non-monogamous relationships have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S174360951534008X?via%3Dihub">safer sex practices</a> than monogamous, but unfaithful partners. Ethical non-monogamy can be a safer outlet for sexual expression compared with monogamous relationships that have led to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article-abstract/12/10/2022/6966715">cheating</a> where someone ends up passing an STI to their partner. In healthy relationships, partners recognise that each person has their own unique sexual preferences and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-021-00667-7">diverse needs</a>. For consensually non-monogamous partners, this means understanding that their primary relationship may not always fulfil all their sexual desires. Although jealousy can still exist within non-monogamous relationships, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1041794X.2018.1531916">research</a> has found that it can be more <a href="https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3297&context=tqr">manageable</a> than in monogamous ones. This is because, in secure non-monogamous partnerships, there are open discussions about sexual attraction and setting boundaries, where partners can address jealousy anxiety. <h2>Exploring non-monogamy</h2> Ethical non-monogamy is not for everyone. You should only explore this type of relationship if it feels comfortable, you seek appropriate consent and the existing relationship is solid. Outsiders often hold the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33990929/">stereotypical</a> view that people only engage in ENM if their current relationship is unstable. If you decide that it’s right for you, keep the following in mind. 1. Communicate openly Communication is important in any relationship, but especially critical in ENM relationships. Partners must be transparent and honest about their intentions, feelings, expectations and boundaries. People in non-monogamous relationships need to be aware of their emotional boundaries and be prepared to navigate feelings of <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4">jealousy</a>. 2. Practice safe sex Sexual health is key regardless of your relationship status or style. Get tested regularly for STIs and to use protection during sexual encounters to minimise the risk of transmission. 3. Stop shame Managing stigma is one of the most difficult parts of an ENM relationship. When people are socialised to believe that having multiple partners is wrong or immoral, this can lead to feelings of shame and self-doubt. It is important to recognise that consensually non-monogamous and multipartnered relationships are a valid lifestyle choice. You can seek support from like-minded people or talk to a sex and relationship therapist if necessary. While non-monogamy is not everyone’s cup of tea, these tips can be helpful for any relationship. Ultimately, it is essential to keep communication, consent and respect at the heart of your partnership. Image credit: Shutterstock This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/ethical-non-monogamy-what-to-know-about-these-often-misunderstood-relationships-200785" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Relationships

The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value?

Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069523/sam-altman-investment-180-million-retro-biosciences-longevity-death/">recently invested</a> US$180 million into Retro Biosciences – a company seeking to extend human lifespans by <a href="https://retro.bio/announcement/">ten healthy years</a>. One way it plans to achieve this is by “rejuvenating” blood. This idea is based on studies that found old mice <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/young-blood-renews-old-mice">showed signs of reversed ageing</a> when given the blood of young mice. Altman isn’t the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur supporting life extension efforts. PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Google cofounder Larry Page have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/feb/17/if-they-could-turn-back-time-how-tech-billionaires-are-trying-to-reverse-the-ageing-process">poured millions</a> into projects that could profoundly affect how we live our lives. The first question raised is scientific: could these technologies work? On this front the jury is still out, and there are grounds for both <a href="https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2021-01-14/How-close-are-we-to-radical-life-extension-and-is-it-a-good-idea--X03UFbnMWs/index.html">optimism</a> and scepticism. The second question is just as important: even if lifespan extension is feasible, would it be ethical? We explain why some common ethical arguments against lifespan extension aren’t as solid as they might seem – and put forth another, somewhat overlooked explanation for why trying to live forever might not be worth it. <h2>Is it worth it if you still die anyway?</h2> One might argue lifespan extension merely pushes back the inevitable: that we will die. However, the problem with this view is that any life saved will only be saved temporarily. A lifespan extension of ten years is akin to saving a drowning swimmer, only for them to die in a traffic accident ten years later. Although we might be sad about their eventual death, we’d still be glad we saved them. The same is true of conventional medicine. If a doctor cures my pneumonia, I will eventually die of something else, but that doesn’t mean the doctor or I will regret my being saved. It’s also worth taking a longer view of where lifespan extension research could lead us. In the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC423155/">most optimistic scenarios</a> put forth by experts, even modest short-term gains could help people add centuries to their life, since the benefits of each intervention could cascade. For example, each extra year of life would increase the likelihood of surviving until the next big breakthrough. <h2>Is it worth it if immortality could get boring?</h2> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953604004691">Many</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890406510000757">have argued</a> against lifespan extension on ethical grounds, saying they wouldn’t use these technologies. Why might somebody be opposed? One worry is that a very long life might be undesirable. Philosopher <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/problems-of-the-self/makropulos-case-reflections-on-the-tedium-of-immortality/9180185912980E017EE675254B2F4169">Bernard Williams</a> said life is made valuable through the satisfaction of what he calls “categorical desires”: desires that give us reason to want to live. Williams expects these desires relate to major life projects, such as raising a child, or writing a novel. He worries that, given a long enough life, we will run out of such projects. If so, immortality would become tedious. It’s unclear whether Williams is right. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672559.2012.713383">Some philosophers</a> point out human memories are fallible, and certain desires could resurface as we forget earlier experiences. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-015-9203-8">Others</a> emphasise that our categorical desires evolve as our life experiences reshape our interests – and might continue to do so over the course of a very long life. In either case, our categorical desires, and hence our reason for living, would not be exhausted over a very long life. Even if immortality did get tedious, this wouldn’t count against modest lifespan extensions. Many would argue 80-something years isn’t enough time to explore one’s potential. Personally, we’d welcome another 20 or even 50 years to write a novel, or start a career as a DJ. <h2>Is it worth it if poor people miss out?</h2> Another worry regarding lifespan extension technologies is egalitarian. These technologies will be expensive; it seems unjust for Silicon Valley billionaires to celebrate their 150th birthdays while the rest of us mostly die in our 70s and 80s. This objection seems convincing. Most people welcome interventions that promote health equality, which is reflected in broader societal demands for universal healthcare. But there’s important nuance to consider here. Consider that universal healthcare systems promote equality by improving the situation of those who aren’t well off. On the other hand, preventing the development of lifespan extension technologies will worsen the situation of those who are well off. The ethical desirability of equality based on “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9329.00041">levelling down</a>” is unclear. The poorest Australians are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-poorest-australians-are-twice-as-likely-to-die-before-age-75-as-the-richest-and-the-gap-is-widening-139201">twice as likely</a> to die before age 75 than the richest. Yet few people would argue we should stop developing technologies to improve the health of those aged over 75. Moreover, the price of lifespan extension technologies would eventually likely come down. <h2>The real problem</h2> However, we think there’s one serious ethical objection that applies to extreme cases of life extension. If humans routinely lived very long lives, this could reduce how adaptable our populations are, and lead to social stagnation. Even modest increases in life expectancy would radically increase population size. To avoid overpopulation, we’d need to <a href="https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-having-a-baby-as-the-planet-collapses-first-ask-yourself-5-big-ethical-questions-196388">reduce birth rates</a>, which would drastically slow generational turnover. As one of us (Chris) has explored in previous <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article/40/6/696/2747126">research</a>, this could be incredibly harmful to societal progress, because it may: <ol> <li>increase our vulnerability to extinction threats</li> <li>jeopardise individual wellbeing, and</li> <li>impede moral advancement.</li> </ol> Many fields benefit from a regular influx of young minds coming in and building on the work of predecessors. Even if the brains of older scientists remained sharp, their “confirmation bias” – a tendency to seek and interpret information in ways that confirm one’s prior beliefs – could slow the uptake of new scientific theories. Moral beliefs are also prone to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1">confirmation bias</a>. In a world of extended lifespans, individuals whose moral views were set in their youth (perhaps more than 100 years ago) will remain in positions of power. It seems likely our society’s moral code is <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-015-9567-7">badly mistaken</a> in at least some respects. After all, we think past societies were catastrophically mistaken in theirs, such as when they endorsed slavery, or rendered homosexuality illegal. Slowing generational turnover could delay the point at which we recognise and fix our own moral catastrophes, especially those we can’t yet see. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rich-are-pouring-millions-into-life-extension-research-but-does-it-have-any-ethical-value-201774" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Caring

The ethics of home ownership in an age of growing inequality

For many Americans today, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/key-facts-about-housing-affordability-in-the-u-s/">homeownership is an unattainable dream</a>. In 2022, the average <a href="https://apnews.com/article/inflation-business-economy-prices-mortgages-b3d20020ecddf7a13bd62fb7b5ed7c0c">long-term U.S. mortgage rate rose to 7%</a> for the first time in more than two decades. The median sales price of existing homes <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-home-sales-fell-again-in-june-economists-estimate-11658309401">climbed to a record US$416,000</a> while demand for mortgages dropped to a <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/19/mortgage-demand-drops-to-a-25-year-low-as-interest-rates-climb.html">25-year low</a>. Experts forecast a turnaround in 2023, predicting a fall in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/real-estate/housing-market-predictions/">home prices</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/mortgage-interest-rates-forecast/">mortgage rates</a>. With the housing market likely to cool modestly, the prospect of a gradual return to affordability may sound like music to buyers’ ears. But should people be purchasing property at all? My <a href="https://hi.psu.edu/scholars/desiree-lim/">research examines</a> the negative impact of property ownership. Despite the current state of the housing market, property is <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/08/30/housing-prices-are-dropping---yes-a-house-is-still-a-good-investment/">still considered a sound investment</a> – at least for the limited group who can afford it. However, property ownership can have serious consequences on others’ lives. <h2>Buying to make a profit?</h2> There is a difference between the two main categories of property buyers: those purchasing property as a primary home versus property for investment. Purchasing property as a primary home is considered more ethical than acquiring property for investment, as housing is considered a basic necessity. Property for investment, however, is owned for personal profit, often without the owner’s intending to ever live there. Investors may purchase homes that can be “fixed and flipped” and sell them at a profit or lease them to renters. As of 2019, renters headed around <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/02/as-national-eviction-ban-expires-a-look-at-who-rents-and-who-owns-in-the-u-s/">36% of the nation’s 122.8 million households</a>. Census data shows that <a href="https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf">there are 48.2 million rental units</a> in the U.S., roughly 70% of which are owned by individual landlords. <h2>Landlordphobia?</h2> Landlords have often been <a href="https://jacobin.com/2021/07/abolish-landlords-cancel-rent-eviction-homelessness">criticized for being callous</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/landlords-social-parasites-last-people-should-be-honouring-buy-to-let">greedy</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00502-1">COVID-19</a> exacerbated landlords’ poor reputations because the pandemic increased <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.2020866">renter payment difficulties</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306353">triggered widespread evictions</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3613030">homelessness</a>. Some renters complained about uncaring landlords who were <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12555">accused of pressuring and threatening vulnerable tenants</a>. The federal and state governments stepped in to help people with such interventions as the <a href="https://nlihc.org/coronavirus-and-housing-homelessness/national-eviction-moratorium">federal eviction moratorium</a> and New York City’s <a href="https://www.nyc.gov/site/rentfreeze/index.page">rent freeze program</a>. Yet landlords also provide rental opportunities for those who prefer not to buy and for those who wish to buy their own home but cannot afford it. Furthermore, landlords can be seen as offering a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/reasons-renting-a-house-is-better-than-buying-one-2019-8?r=US&IR=T">valuable service to those who are not seeking long-term occupancy</a>, such as university students who plan to leave upon graduation or temporary visitors to the U.S. The ethics of renting out property, then, seems to turn partly on whether renters need it for long-term basic shelter. Landlords are often blamed for the housing crisis. However, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-housing/homelessness-and-human-rights">right to long-term shelter</a>. Individual landlords may contribute toward a poor housing system, but they act within the confines of the system. Only governments have the power to change the system, through investment in affordable housing. <h2>The ethics of owning a home</h2> Homebuyers also have ethical obligations to others. Choosing to own property in a <a href="https://bayareaequityatlas.org/indicators/gentrification-risk#/">gentrifying neighborhood, or one considered at risk of gentrifying</a>, may contribute to the forced displacement of <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/examining-the-negative-impacts-of-gentrification/">existing long-term residents</a>. The harms of having to leave one’s former neighborhood include the severing of community networks or enduring the strain of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/business/economy/san-francisco-commute.html">extraordinarily long work commutes</a>. Additionally, persons of color <a href="http://www.wipsociology.org/2021/05/20/how-gentrification-reproduces-racial-inequality">are disproportionately affected by gentrification</a>, which may create new patterns of racial segregation. Given these consequences, aspiring homeowners should perhaps avoid purchasing homes in neighbourhoods with vulnerable residents. But, with housing unaffordability writ large, first-time buyers may be able to afford properties only in neighborhoods at risk of gentrification. <h2>Mitigating risk</h2> How can governments mitigate risks like racial segregation while also providing affordable housing? One example is Singapore’s system of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-08/behind-the-design-of-singapore-s-low-cost-housing">affordable public housing</a>. To prevent segregation, Singapore introduced racial quotas in public housing that require minimum levels of occupancy of each of its main ethnic groups – Chinese, Malay, Indian, and others, which includes all other ethnicities. Though intrusive and <a href="https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/documents/PB%20no.128web.pdf">imperfect in its execution</a>, the Singaporean approach shows that a more proactive approach to housing is possible. Landlords may have moral duties, but the government’s role in recognising and protecting the right to stable long-term housing must not be ignored. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ethics-of-home-ownership-in-an-age-of-growing-inequality-196775" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Real Estate

There’s a serious ethical problem with some sunscreen testing methods – and you’re probably not aware of it

As summer approaches, we need to start remembering to slip on sun-protective clothing, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shade where possible, and slide on sunglasses. When it comes to sunscreen, we all know we need to wear it to protect against the harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which can cause skin cancer. But what about the sun protection factor, known as the SPF rating, we see on our sunscreen bottles? It indicates the level of protection – but is it always what it says it is, and how is it actually tested? <h2>Risking human health for SPF testing</h2> While there have been some cases of <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/news/news/sunscreen-testing-ama-laboratories-condition-listing">sunscreens not matching up to their SPF claims</a>, this is the exception and not the norm. In Australia, we can be comfortable knowing these products are tightly regulated to ensure they are safe and meet their claimed SPF rating, according to current SPF testing methods. However, problems arise when it comes to how sunscreens are tested for their SPF rating. Most people would not be aware that the SPF value on their sunscreen bottles is determined by testing on humans. Ultimately, this means we are risking people’s health to test how effective our sunscreens are – and we urgently need to change this. <h2>How is sunscreen SPF tested?</h2> Once a sunscreen formulation has been developed by a manufacturer it needs to go through testing to ensure it only contains approved ingredients, and ultimately, that it does what it says it does. All sunscreen products available in Australia are <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/news/news/about-sunscreens">tested according to the Australian Standard to determine the SPF</a>. This is great and provides assurance of safety and quality for the consumer – but the problem is with how this testing is done. Currently, testing sunscreens on humans is the approved international standard to rate the UV protection level of a sunscreen. This testing involves volunteers wearing strictly defined amounts of sunscreen and being exposed to artificial solar <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-radiation/non-ionising-radiation/ultraviolet-radiation">UV radiation</a>. Performance is measured by determining the time it takes for erythema or redness to occur. <a href="https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/policy-and-advocacy/prevention-policy/national-cancer-prevention-policy/skin-cancer-statistics-and-issues/sunburn">This is, basically, sunburn</a>; based on this, an SPF rating is assigned. <h2>Why is human testing of SPF a problem?</h2> If sunscreens only contain approved ingredients we know are safe, is it really a problem they are tested on humans? Sadly, yes. Human testing involves exposing people to harmful UV radiation, which we know can cause skin and eye damage, <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/sun-exposure">as well as being the leading cause of skin cancer</a>. This alone is <a href="https://www.phrp.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/PHRP3212205.pdf">unethical and unjustifiable</a>. There are also other issues associated with testing sunscreen on humans. For example, the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phpp.12095">use of erythema to determine sunscreen effectiveness is highly subjective</a>, and may differ from one person to another, even for those with the same <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/pubs/RadiationProtection/FitzpatrickSkinType.pdf">skin type</a>. This makes the reliability of such testing methods questionable. Further, testing is only done on a small number of people (a minimum of <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian-regulatory-guidelines-for-sunscreens.pdf">ten people is required in Australia</a>). This is great for exposing as few people as possible to harmful UV radiation to determine a product’s SPF rating – but not so great when it comes to inclusiveness. Testing such a small number of people is not representative. It does not include all skin types and leads to real <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ics.12333">challenges in achieving reproducible results</a> across different laboratories testing the same product. The testing itself is also very expensive. This adds to the already high cost of buying sunscreens, and potentially limits manufacturers from developing new and better products. These, along with many other issues, highlight the urgency for non-human (in vitro) testing methods of a sunscreen’s effectiveness to be developed. <h2>Human-free SPF testing technology is in development</h2> While efforts have been made to develop non-human testing methods, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993622002072">there remain several challenges</a>. <a href="https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/292777">These include</a> the materials used to simulate human skin (also known as substrates), difficulties in applying the sunscreen to these substrates, reproducibility of results, and ensuring that results are the same as what we see with human testing. However, scientists at <a href="https://www.rmit.edu.au/">RMIT University</a>, with support from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (<a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/">ARPANSA</a>) and the <a href="https://www.cancervic.org.au/">Cancer Council Victoria</a>, are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993622002072">working on a solution to this problem</a>. So far, they have developed a prototype sensor that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06273-3">changes colour when exposed to UV radiation</a>. This <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06273-3/figures/5">sensor</a> could be customised for human-free sunscreen testing, for example. Reliable in vitro testing methods will mean in the future, sunscreen manufacturers would be able to quickly make and test new and better sunscreens, without being limited by the time and cost constraints involved with human testing. So the next time you buy a bottle of sunscreen, look to purchase the highest-rated sunscreen of SPF 50+ – and know that work is underway on getting that rating classified in a more ethical way. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-a-serious-ethical-problem-with-some-sunscreen-testing-methods-and-youre-probably-not-aware-of-it-195359" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Beauty & Style

"I can only do so much": we asked fast-fashion shoppers how ethical concerns shape their choices

You’ve found the perfect dress. You’ve tried it on before and you know it looks great. Now it’s on sale, a discount so large the store is practically giving it away. Should you buy it? For some of us it’s a no-brainer. For others it’s an ethical dilemma whenever we shop for clothes. <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFMM-01-2019-0011/full/html">What matters more</a>? How the item was made or how much it costs? Is the most important information on the label or the price tag? Of the world’s industries that profit from worker exploitation, the <a href="https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/">fashion industry is notorious</a>, in part because of the sharp contrast between how fashion is made and how it is marketed. There are more people <a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_575479/lang--en/index.htm">working in exploitative conditions</a> than ever before. Globally, the garment industry employs millions of people, with <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/documents/briefingnote/wcms_758626.pdf">65 million garment sector workers in Asia alone</a>. The Clean Clothes Campaign estimates <a href="https://cleanclothes.org/poverty-wages">less than 1%</a> of what you pay for a typical garment goes to the workers who made it. <h2>How much does a worker make on a $30 shirt?</h2> Some work in conditions so exploitative they meet the definition of being <a href="https://www.commonobjective.co/article/modern-slavery-and-the-fashion-industry">modern slaves</a> – trapped in situations they can’t leave due to coercion and threats. But their plight is hidden by the distance between the worker and the buyer. Global supply chains have helped such exploitation to hide and thrive. Do we really care, and what can we do? We conducted <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-06-2021-0158">in-depth interviews</a> with 21 women who buy “fast fashion” – “on-trend” clothing made and sold at very low cost – to find out how much they think about the conditions of the workers who make their clothes, and and what effort they take to avoid slave-free clothing. Well-known fast-fashion brands include H&M, Zara and Uniqlo. What they told us highlights the inadequacy of seeking to eradicate exploitation in the fashion industry by relying on consumers to do the heavy lifting. Struggling to seek reliable information on ethical practices, consumers are overwhelmed when trying to navigate ethical consumerism. <h2>Out of sight, out of mind</h2> The 21 participants in our research were women aged 18 to 55, from diverse backgrounds across Australia. We selected participants who were aware of exploitation in the fashion industry but had still bought fast fashion in the previous six months. This was not a survey but qualitative research involving in-depth interviews to understand the disconnect between awareness and action. Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-06-2021-0158">key finding </a> is that clothing consumers’ physical and cultural distance from those who make the clothes makes it difficult to relate to their experience. Even if we’ve seen images of sweatshops, it’s still hard to comprehend what the working conditions are truly like. As Fiona*, a woman in her late 30s, put it: “I don’t think people care [but] it’s not in a nasty way. It’s like an out of sight, out of mind situation.” This problem of geographic and cultural distance between garment workers and fashion shoppers highlights the paucity of solutions premised on driving change in the industry through consumer activism. <h2>Who is responsible?</h2> Australia’s Modern Slavery Act, for example, tackles the problem only by requiring large companies to report to a <a href="https://modernslaveryregister.gov.au/">public register</a>on their efforts to identify risks of modern slavery in their supply chains and what they are doing to eliminate these risks. While greater transparency is certainly a big step forward for the industry, the legislation still presumes that the threat of reputational damage is enough to get industry players to change their ways. The success of the legislation falls largely on the ability of activist organisations to sift through and publicise the performance of companies in an effort to encourage consumers to hold companies accountable. All our interviewees told us they felt unfairly burdened with the responsibility to seek information on working conditions and ethical practices to hold retailers to account or to feel empowered to make the “correct” ethical choice. “It’s too hard sometimes to actually track down the line of whether something’s made ethically,” said Zoe*, a woman in her early 20s. Given that many retailers are themselves ignorant about <a href="https://www.afr.com/wealth/investing/companies-risk-litigation-over-modern-slavery-ignorance-20201215-p56nix">their own supply chains</a>, it is asking a lot to expect the average consumer to unravel the truth and make ethical shopping choices. <h2>Confusion + overwhelm = inaction</h2> “We have to shop according to what we care about, what is in line with our values, family values, budget,” said Sarah*, who is in her early 40s. She said she copes with feeling overwhelmed by ignoring some issues and focus on the ethical actions she knew would make a difference. “I’m doing so many other good things,” she said. “We can’t be perfect, and I can only do so much.” Other participants also talked about juggling considerations about environmental and social impacts. “It’s made in Bangladesh, but it’s 100% cotton, so, I don’t know, is it ethical?” is how Lauren*, a woman in her early 20s, put it. “It depends on what qualifies as ethical […] and what is just marketing.” Comparatively, participants felt their actions to mitigate environmental harm made a tangible difference. They could see the impact and felt rewarded and empowered to continue making positive change. This was not the case for modern slavery and worker rights more generally. Fast fashion is a lucrative market, with <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-billionaire-family-behind-fast-fashion-powerhouse-boohoo-2019-11?r=AU&IR=T">billions in profits made</a>thanks to the work of the lowest paid workers in the world. There is no denying consumers wield a lot of power, and we shouldn’t absolve consumers of their part in creating demand for the cheapest clothes humanly – or inhumanly – possible. But consumer choice alone is insufficient. We need a system where all our clothing choices are ethical, where we don’t need to make a choice between what is right and what is cheap. Image credits: Shutterstock This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-can-only-do-so-much-we-asked-fast-fashion-shoppers-how-ethical-concerns-shape-their-choices-172978" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Beauty & Style

We know sweatshop clothing is bad – and buy it anyway. Here’s how your brain makes excuses

You face a dilemma. You’ve found the perfect shirt, and it’s an absolute bargain, but you notice it’s “Made in Bangladesh”. You’re conscious it was probably made using cheap labour. Do you buy it, or walk away? Recently, Oxfam released its annual <a href="https://www.oxfam.org.au/what-she-makes/naughty-or-nice-2022/">Naughty or Nice</a> list. This list highlights retail brands committed to transparent sourcing, separating labour costs in price negations, and conducting a wage gap analysis to work towards paying workers a living wage. This list is one of several resources trying to encourage ethical consumption. Yet despite concerns of sweatshop labour, and consumers claiming they’re <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-2976-9_5">willing to pay more</a> for ethically-sourced clothes, there remains high demand for ultra-low-price mass-produced clothing. The explanation lies in a psychological phenomenon called <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/motivated-reasoning">motivated reasoning</a>. It explains how people convince themselves sweatshop labour is actually okay, as long as the product is desirable. <h2>The many costs of low-priced apparel</h2> Consumption is an individualistic act. It allows us to distinguish ourselves through our clothing, culture, and even the entertainment we consume. <a href="https://www.cairn.info/revue-rimhe-2016-5-page-45.htm">Ethical consumption</a> is when consumers consider the wider environmental and societal impacts of what they consume, including <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0267257X.2012.659280">when they purchase clothing</a>. Revenue from the global apparel market is expected to reach <a href="https://www.statista.com/topics/5091/apparel-market-worldwide/#topicHeader__wrapper">US$2 trillion</a> (about A$3 trillion) by 2026. Asia remains the garment factory of the world. It accounts for 55% of global textiles and clothing exports, and employs some <a href="https://www.ilo.org/asia/media-centre/news/WCMS_848238/lang--en/index.htm">60 million workers</a>. And the International Labour Organisation has estimated <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---ipec/documents/publication/wcms_797515.pdf">160 million children</a>aged 5 to 17 were engaged in child labour at the beginning of 2020 – many of which would have worked in the fashion supply chain. <h2>Isn’t any job better than no job?</h2> A common defence by manufacturers that use exploitative labour arrangements is that such work is often <a href="https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=csspe">the best option available</a> for those workers. Workers voluntarily accept the conditions, and their employment helps with <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-006-1006-z">long-term economic development</a>. At the same time, emerging research argues sweatshops are the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0950017020926372">result of consumer choice</a>, wherein retailers are simply responding to a demand for ultra-low-price fashion. This infers that if there was no demand, there would be no sweatshops. But one problem with holding consumers responsible is that the vast majority aren’t aware of how their clothes are made. Despite “supply chain transparency” being credited for increasing <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cb.1852">brand legitimacy and trust</a>, true transparency is <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2021.1993575?scroll=top&needAccess=true">difficult to attain</a>, even for retailers, due to the disjointed and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/03/18/why-fashion-supply-chain-traceability-is-a-tech-challenge-that-begins-with-ai/?sh=362e093d5f6d">distant elements</a> of how products move through the supply chain (which includes suppliers, producers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers). Our own <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFMM-06-2021-0158/full/html">research</a> into consumers’ perception of worker welfare found people struggle to connect the $5 shirt they bought with the person who made it, or how it was made. <h2>Motivated reasoning</h2> Oxfam’s Naughty or Nice list aims to name (and essentially shame) retail brands that fail to disclose which factories they source product from, and how they manage sourcing integrity. The logic is that if consumers are aware of which brands disclose their ethical sourcing strategies, then they’ll make more informed purchase decisions. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Our brains are wired to arrive at conclusions we prefer, as long as we maintain an <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1991-06436-001.pdf?auth_token=dfa958470d287abcbf517c0362958f295e8fff44">illusion of objectivity</a>. And we do this even when the evidence is contrary to our beliefs. A person can consider themselves an ethical consumer (which forms part of their “<a href="https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/">self-concept</a>”) and still buy a $5 shirt, though they suspect it may have been made in a sweatshop. They may tell themselves “any job is better than no job” for workers, or “money saved today is money to spend on the children tomorrow”. In doing so they convince themselves they have objectively considered the purchase. The <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633">theory of self-concept</a> explains how consumers can justify the “ethical burden” away. It also suggests people use higher-order thinking to rationalise and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3">justify personal transgressions</a>. Most of us are so distant from supply chain exploitation, and so hooked on scoring a bargain, that seeing a list of “naughty” retail brands won’t change our behaviour. <h2>Evidence of motivated reasoning</h2> Researchers have studied how we use motivated reasoning to arrive at <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597813000149">more preferable outcomes</a> that help protect our self-concept. In one experiment they examined whether participants would use economic justifications (such as “any job is better than no job”) to book a Caribbean holiday at a resort associated with questionable labour practices. They found participants were likely to rationalise their choice and take the holiday despite claims of exploitative working conditions. In a second study they explored the link between justifications for sweatshop labour and product desirability. As predicted, economic justifications were higher for highly desirable sweatshop-made shoes. Other studies have found motivated reasoning being employed to justify <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167299025001003">keeping overpayments</a> and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-017-3698-9">self-allocating annual bonuses</a>, among <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2014.932817">other examples</a>. <h2>How can you shop more ethically?</h2> The bottom line is ethical consumption must be internally motivated. The good news is once you have this motivation, there are a number of resources to help you. Knowledge is power Oxfam’s Naughty or Nice report, Clean Clothes’ <a href="https://cleanclothes.org/campaigns/the-accord/brand-tracker">Brand Tracker</a>, <a href="https://www.fairwear.org/">Fair Wear</a>, <a href="https://goodonyou.eco/about/">Good On You</a>, and Fashion Revolution’s <a href="https://www.fashionrevolution.org/about/transparency/">Fashion Transparency Index</a> are all great resources to identify which brands disclose their social policies, practices, and impacts in their operations and supply chain. Brand accreditations Most brands will disclose if they have their ethical credentials certified by organisations such as <a href="https://ethicalclothingaustralia.org.au/about/">Ethical Clothing Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.wrapcompliance.org/">WRAP</a> or <a href="https://www.fairtrade.net/about/certification">Fairtrade International</a>. These <a href="https://ethicalclothingaustralia.org.au/steps-to-accreditation/">accreditations</a> generally involve a rigorous process of independent eligibility tests, compliance with guidelines and external annual audits. Self-reporting Many leading brands provide their policies on ethical sourcing and slave labour online (see <a href="https://www.kmart.com.au/modernslavery/">Kmart and Target</a> and <a href="https://www.wesfarmers.com.au/docs/default-source/sustainability/sustainability-documents/2108261641-wesfarmers-approach-to-human-rights.pdf?sfvrsn=237912bb_20#xd_co_f=ODY2ZWYyMGYtMDY4My00ZmQ1LTg4NmEtNjBjOTM0YmFhM2Nm%7E">Wesfamers</a>). Make sure the claims are made in accordance with reporting requirements from <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/Pages/modern-slavery.aspx">Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018</a>. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-know-sweatshop-clothing-is-bad-and-buy-it-anyway-heres-how-your-brain-makes-excuses-192944" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Beauty & Style

Saving for retirement gives you power, and ethical responsibilities

If you’re in a super fund, then, like it or not, you’ve got ethical decisions to make. More than <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/research-and-statistics/in-detail/super-statistics/super-accounts-data/multiple-super-accounts-data/">10 million</a> Australians have a superannuation account. Which means, effectively, more than 10 million of us are mini-shareholders with the capacity to influence future business decisions. With that power, however small, comes responsibility. And nowhere more apparent than in relation to climate change. Last month, the world’s biggest asset manager, <a href="https://insidestory.org.au/putting-the-heat-on-polluting-businesses/">BlackRock</a>, surprised Australia’s biggest electricity producer and carbon dioxide emitter, AGL, by backing a <a href="https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/press-release/blk-vote-bulletin-agl-oct-2020.pdf">motion</a> that would have forced it to close its coal-fired plants <a href="https://www.accr.org.au/news/investor-briefing-on-shareholder-resolutions-to-agl-energy-ltd-on-coal-closure-dates/">earlier than planned</a>. <div data-id="17"> </div> The resolution at AGL’s annual general meeting failed, but when a global firm managing more than US$7 trillion in investors’ savings says it’s time to accelerate the exit from coal, it’s wise sit up and take notice. Interestingly though, some of Australia’s biggest industry super funds, among them Cbus, Hesta and Aware, refused to support the motion, which was put forward by the <a href="https://www.accr.org.au/">Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility</a>. <h2>Work ‘behind the scenes’</h2> It’s been a pattern with industry super funds. Rather than using their overt voting power to try to change corporate behaviour, or divest from companies altogether, they say they prefer to exert influence behind the scenes, through conversations in board rooms and executive suites. Take, UniSuper, to which I contribute. It says it <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/about-us/news/2020/09/14/a-sustainable-path-to-2050">engages with companies</a> “to encourage rapid decarbonisation of their operations and supply chains”. UniSuper is one of only three industry funds to commit to achieving net zero carbon emissions across its portfolio by 2050 — the others are Cbus and HESTA. <h2>Yet doubling down on gas</h2> UniSuper has joined eight other funds in <a href="https://www.marketforces.org.au/super-funds-october-2020-update/">divesting</a> from companies that predominantly make their money from producing coal for electricity generation. Yet if your retirement savings are in UniSuper’ default <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/investments/investment-options-and-performance/super-performance-and-option-holdings/balanced">balanced option</a>, then they are partly <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/unisuper-new-climate-policy-signals-move-away-from-coal-20200915-p55vxn.html">invested in Woodside</a>, a company seeking to build a huge new gas hub on the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia. Woodside says the hub, which will operate for “<a href="https://www.woodside.com.au/our-business/burrup-hub">decades into the future</a>”, could process more gas than the entire volume extracted so far from another of its resource projects, the <a href="https://www.woodside.com.au/our-business/north-west-shelf">North West Shelf</a> which began operations 36 years ago. If you’ve chosen UniSuper’s <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/investments/investment-options-and-performance/super-performance-and-option-holdings/conservative">conservative</a> option, then you are not only invested in Woodside, but also in Santos, which is behind the contested <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-30/santos-narrabri-coal-seam-gas-project-approved/12716350">Narrabri</a> coal seam gas project in NSW. UniSuper’s annual <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/%7E/media/files/forms%20and%20downloads/investment%20documents/climate-risk-and-our-investments.pdf?la=en">report</a> on climate risk also reveals smaller investments in gas producers Origin and Oil Search. Experts say worldwide gas use needs to <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-single-mega-project-exposes-the-morrison-governments-gas-plan-as-staggering-folly-133435">peak before 2030</a> in order to keep global warming below agreed levels. It means UniSuper, and other big funds, are investing our collective retirement savings in firms whose corporate strategies threaten our collective future. UniSuper cites <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/%7E/media/files/forms%20and%20downloads/investment%20documents/climate-risk-management-unisuper.pdf">AGL</a> as an example why it stays with polluting companies. While it runs power stations fuelled by coal and gas, it also invests in renewable technology. It says, if it were to divest, its AGL shares might be acquired by investors with less concern for the environment. "It can be in the best interests of the environment and society for the assets to be held by a responsible and reputable entity." It’s a justification that could equally be used to defend running a gambling venue — if I didn’t install poker machines, someone else would, and at least I care for my customers. (As it happens, UniSuper’s “balanced” option <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/investments/our-investment-options/balanced">includes</a> shares in Aristocrat Leisure, a leading maker of gaming machines.) <h2>Super funds have more power than they use</h2> The justification sidesteps the question of whether the investment itself is defensible. And it ignores the opposing argument — that divestment by a leading super fund can send a powerful signal to the market that a company is not properly addressing climate risk or developing an appropriate strategies for a carbon-constrained world. Any company not doing these things is putting our savings at risk. According to expert legal opinion, its directors might be <a href="https://cpd.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Legal-Opinion-on-Climate-Change-and-Directors-Duties.pdf">breaching their obligations</a> under the Corporations Act. <h2>We’ve got power ourselves</h2> There are legitimate arguments to be had about the best way for super funds to push businesses to act more urgently on climate change, but as fund members, and the ultimate owners of our money, we need to make up our own minds and act accordingly. To sit back and let others do it on our behalf is an abrogation of responsibility. Superannuation may be compulsory, but we still have choices. We can find out which companies our retirement savings are invested in, and swap to a more sustainable option in the same fund. This can take some digging around, but as with <a href="https://www.unisuper.com.au/investments/how-we-invest/responsible-and-sustainable-investing/responsible-investment-policies-statements-and-reports">UniSuper</a>, some the information is available on the fund’s website or can be obtained by asking questions. Or we can consider switching to a different fund altogether. There are websites that <a href="https://www.marketforces.org.au/super-funds-october-2020-update/">track and compare</a> superannuation investments in fossil fuels. For a range of reasons, it’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/unisuper-take-note-theres-no-retirement-on-a-dead-planet-132194">more difficult</a> to switch to a new fund for UniSuper members. But even where it isn’t possible, we can write to our funds, urging them to engage more actively on climate change. It’s easy to find the addresses. They are forever sending us emails. It’s what they say they do with fossil fuel companies — engage them in conversations. We can tell them where we want our savings invested and how we want them to use their clout to influence company decisions and vote at shareholder meetings. We can do this as individuals, and we can <a href="https://unisuperdivest.org/">band together</a> with like-minded fund members to speak with one voice. With a combined <a href="https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/superannuation-statistics">A$2.9 trillion</a> in assets, one fifth of which are invested in Australian companies listed on the stock exchange, super funds own a fair chunk of Australia’s most important companies. It would be wrong for them not to take that responsibly seriously, just as it would be wrong of us not to take seriously what our savings are being used for. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/saving-for-retirement-gives-you-power-and-ethical-responsibilities-148349" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

AI recruitment tools are “automated pseudoscience” says Cambridge researchers

AI is set to bring in a whole new world in a huge range of industries. Everything from art to medicine is being overhauled by machine learning. But researchers from the University of Cambridge have published a paper in <a href="https://link.springer.com/journal/13347" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Philosophy & Technology</a> to call out AI used to recruit people for jobs and boost workplace diversity – going so far as to call them an “automated pseudoscience”. “We are concerned that some vendors are wrapping ‘snake oil’ products in a shiny package and selling them to unsuspecting customers,” said co-author Dr Eleanor Drage, a researcher in AI ethics. “By claiming that racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination can be stripped away from the hiring process using artificial intelligence, these companies reduce race and gender down to insignificant data points, rather than systems of power that shape how we move through the world.” Recent years have seen the emergence of AI tools marketed as an answer to lack of diversity in the workforce. This can be anything from use of chatbots and resume scrapers, to line up prospective candidates, through to analysis software for video interviews. Those behind the technology claim it cancels out human biases against gender and ethnicity during recruitment, instead using algorithms that read vocabulary, speech patterns, and even facial micro-expressions, to assess huge pools of job applicants for the right personality type and ‘culture fit’. But AI isn’t very good at removing human biases. To train a machine-learning algorithm, you have to first put in lots and lots of past data. In the past for example, AI tools have discounted women all together in fields where more men were traditionally hired. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/10/amazon-hiring-ai-gender-bias-recruiting-engine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In a system created by Amazon</a>, resumes were discounted if they included the word ‘women’s’ – like in a “women’s debating team” and downgraded graduates of two all-women colleges. Similar problems occur with race. <div class="newsletter-box"> <div id="wpcf7-f6-p218666-o1" class="wpcf7" dir="ltr" lang="en-US" role="form"> <form class="wpcf7-form mailchimp-ext-0.5.62 resetting spai-bg-prepared" action="/technology/ai-recruitment-tools-diversity-cambridge-automated-pseudoscience/#wpcf7-f6-p218666-o1" method="post" novalidate="novalidate" data-status="resetting"> <input class="wpcf7-form-control wpcf7-text referer-page" name="referer-page" type="hidden" value="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/" data-value="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/" aria-invalid="false" /> </form> </div> </div> The Cambridge researchers suggest that even if you remove ‘gender’ or ‘race’ as distinct categories, the use of AI may ultimately increase uniformity in the workforce. This is because the technology is calibrated to search for the employer’s fantasy ‘ideal candidate’, which is likely based on demographically exclusive past results. The researchers actually went a step further, and worked with a team of Cambridge computer science undergraduates, to build an AI tool modelled on the technology. You can check it out <a href="https://personal-ambiguator-frontend.vercel.app/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. The tool demonstrates how arbitrary changes in facial expression, clothing, lighting and background can give radically different personality readings – and so could make the difference between rejection and progression. “While companies may not be acting in bad faith, there is little accountability for how these products are built or tested,” said Drage. “As such, this technology, and the way it is marketed, could end up as dangerous sources of misinformation about how recruitment can be ‘de-biased’ and made fairer.” The researchers suggest that these programs are a dangerous example of ‘technosolutionism’: turning to technology to provide quick fixes for deep-rooted discrimination issues that require investment and changes to company culture. “Industry practitioners developing hiring AI technologies must shift from trying to correct individualized instances of ’bias’ to considering the broader inequalities that shape recruitment processes,” <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-022-00543-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the team write in their paper.</a> “This requires abandoning the ‘veneer of objectivity’ that is grafted onto AI systems, so that technologists can better understand their implication — and that of the corporations within which they work — in the hiring process.”  <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=218666&title=AI+recruitment+tools+are+%E2%80%9Cautomated+pseudoscience%E2%80%9D+says+Cambridge+researchers" width="1" height="1" /> Written by Jacinta Bowler. Republished with permission of <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/ai-recruitment-tools-diversity-cambridge-automated-pseudoscience/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cosmos Magazine</a>. Image: Cambridge University

Technology

Plagiarism, John Hughes’ The Dogs and the ethical responsibilities of the novelist

John Hughes’s novel The Dogs has been withdrawn from the longlist for the Miles Franklin Prize after an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/09/miles-franklin-nominated-novelist-apologises-for-plagiarising-nobel-laureate-without-realising" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation by The Guardian</a> identified numerous instances of plagiarism. Hughes’s lifting of passages from other books has sparked furious debate and literary detective work – mostly on Twitter – prompting questions about the nature of influences, literary pastiche and the attribution of sources in novels. Hughes acknowledged he had unintentionally borrowed from the 2017 English translation of Nobel prize laureate Svetlana Alexievich’s The Unwomanly Face of War, after The Guardian applied document comparison software to both books, finding 58 similarities and some identical sentences. Further investigations by academic Emmett Stinson and writer and critic Shannon Burns exposed the apparent copying of passages from books such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/15/parts-of-john-hughess-novel-the-dogs-copied-from-the-great-gatsby-and-anna-karenina" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Anna Karenina, All Quiet on the Western Front, and The Great Gatsby</a>. This week, meanwhile, poet Lachlan Brown has posted <a href="https://twitter.com/lachbr/status/1538406796024377344" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a series of Google documents</a> identifying similarities between phrases and passages in The Dogs and those in Eric Newby’s Love and War in the Apennines, W.B. Sebald’s The Emigrants, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t9k9aZGMgofYcRNbMCvO0LZB4Zyv0gNq/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amos Oz’s Judas</a>, and Loren Eiseley’s <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-xE6x9b99s26jukvfLjWd71idOy9f0zd/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Invisible Island</a>. Australian National University academic Millicent Weber has also added to the <a href="https://twitter.com/Millicent_Weber/status/1538759965694783489" target="_blank" rel="noopener">growing list</a>, highlighting similarities between phrases used by Hughes and phrases in work by five other writers including Saul Bellow and Nadezhda Mandel’shtam. In response to the accusations of plagiarism, Hughes released two statements. In the first, he explained he had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/09/miles-franklin-nominated-novelist-apologises-for-plagiarising-nobel-laureate-without-realising" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inadvertently incorporated passages typed up from Alexievich’s book</a> into transcripts from his grandparent’s stories of surviving the second world war, which appear fictionalised in The Dogs. Hughes apologised to Alexievich and her translators “for using their words without acknowledgement”. Last Thursday, however, after further revelations, Hughes released a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/16/john-hughes-i-am-not-a-plagiarist-and-heres-why" target="_blank" rel="noopener">second, longer statement,</a> explaining why he was not a plagiarist. Rather than a mea culpa, he drew on arguments first proffered by the Romantic poets of the <a href="https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199644179.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199644179-e-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">late 18th century</a> about the impossibility of originality, and the importance of drawing on other writers’ work as part of the creative process. “It is a rare writer who doesn’t use the work of other writers in their own work”, Hughes said. He went on to cite modernist poet T.S. Eliot, who wrote in his 1920 essay collection, The Sacred Wood: <blockquote> Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. </blockquote> The Dogs is a novel, in part, says Hughes, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/16/john-hughes-i-am-not-a-plagiarist-and-heres-why" target="_blank" rel="noopener">about secondhand stories</a>: fragmented, contradictory memories of war. It is a complex, multi-generational work, narrated by the protagonist, Michael Shamanov, a scriptwriter, and centring on his relationship with his elderly mother, Anna, who is slowly dying in a nursing home. Shifting between past and present, it traces the family’s traumatic history, exploring the tension between the need to remember and the desire to forget. The controversy around this novel, which was previously shortlisted for the New South Wales and the Victorian Premiers’ Literary Awards, echoes recent Australian plagiarism scandals, raising difficult questions about publishing and creative processes. But this one, to say the least, is especially messy. <h2>Cento defence</h2> In his statement of defence (published before this latest material was posted on Twitter), Hughes contended he is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/16/john-hughes-i-am-not-a-plagiarist-and-heres-why" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“no thief”</a>. He had “wanted the appropriated passages” – which, aside from those taken from Alexievich, he did not name – “to be seen and recognised as in a collage”. This is a common line of argument in plagiarism scandals, frequently understood as the “cento defence”. A cento is a poem comprised entirely of lines written by other poets, an ancient form of collage dating back to <a href="https://poets.org/glossary/cento" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Homer and Virgil</a> The success of this form is predicated on two key factors: the transformation of the “stolen” works into something new, interesting or valuable, and an explicit acknowledgement of the processes at work. But if, as Hughes claims, The Dogs takes “ventriloquism as its theme”, intra-textually signalling to the reader that experimental games such as pastiche are at play, why did this not form part of the contextual discussions about the novel? (Indeed Hughes’s publisher, Terri-ann White, said on Friday <a href="https://upswellpublishing.com/category/news" target="_blank" rel="noopener">she felt “affronted”</a> on learning, from his second statement, that he wanted the appropriated passages to be recognised as in a collage.) Hughes is right: there is a legitimate tradition of bricolage and pastiche as artistic forms; but in doing so, even T.S. Eliot used extensive citations. Terri-ann White, <a href="https://upswellpublishing.com/category/news" target="_blank" rel="noopener">went on to say</a>: <blockquote> I have published many writers who use collage and bricolage and other approaches to weaving in other voices and materials to their own work. All of them have acknowledged their sources within the book, usually in a listing of precisely where these borrowings come from. I should have pushed John Hughes harder on his lack of the standard mode of book acknowledgements where any credits to other writers (with permissions or otherwise) […] are held. I regret that now, as you might expect. To have provided a note in this book with attribution would have been the only way to treat it. </blockquote> The freedoms of fiction do not absolve the author of the need to reference when lifting passages of work from others. <h2>Conflicting statements</h2> Australia has a long history of literary scandals. One recent plagiarism case involved Newcastle poet Andrew Slattery, whose prize-winning poem Ransom, published in 2013, was discovered to be comprised of the work of 50 other poets, such as Charles Simic and Robert Bly. Slattery used the “cento defence”, claiming this poem was part of a “cynical experiment.” He acknowledged, however, that it should <a href="https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/1775720/newcastle-poet-in-plagiarism-scandal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“have included footnotes”</a>. In 2020, however, when poet Judith Beveridge was revealed by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/09/poetry-plagiarism-copying-maya-angelou-ira-lightman-will-storr" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poetry sleuth</a> Ira Lightman to have used phrases borrowed from other poets in a number of her poems, including Incense, At Dusk, and Making Perfume, her confession and swift apology ensured there was <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Farts%2Fprime-ministers-top-poet-judith-beveridgeused-the-words-of-others%2Fnews-story%2F7978d96c83fb2cb5ee534c7cb147fc76&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-test-noscore&V21spcbehaviour=append" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comparatively little outrage.</a> Interestingly, in his book of autobiographical essays <a href="https://giramondopublishing.com/books/the-idea-of-home/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Idea of Home</a>, Hughes describes an early (but abandoned) <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Farts%2Freview%2Fdriven-to-obsession%2Fnews-story%2Fc1a113a20a7b159f553bb3b5297cccbb&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-test-score&V21spcbehaviour=append" target="_blank" rel="noopener">doctoral research project on Samuel Taylor Coleridge</a>. An English poet and literary critic, Coleridge – one of the founders of the English Romantic movement – was one of literature’s most <a href="https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/10/21/coleridge-and-plagiarism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notorious plagiarists</a>. Hughes’s case is made particularly messy and unusual by the conflicting statements offered by the author: not only is The Dogs ostensibly an example of pastiche, as noted, but apparently also the result of untidy note-keeping, and an unintended side effect of how “influence […] plays such a crucial role in the creative process”. As it continues to play out on Twitter, with yet more source texts being discovered, the scandal has focused attention on the responsibilities of the author, the complexities of writing fiction, and the ethics of creative practice. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/plagiarism-john-hughes-the-dogs-and-the-ethical-responsibilities-of-the-novelist-185386" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Images: Giramondo Publishing/Good Reads

Books

Spotify’s response to Rogan-gate falls short of its ethical and editorial obligations

Audio streaming giant <a href="https://www.spotify.com/au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Spotify</a> is getting a crash course in the tension between free speech and the need to protect the public from harmful misinformation.The Swedish-founded platform, which has 400 million active users, has faced a hail of criticism over misinformation broadcast on its <a href="https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/joe-rogan-experience-most-popular-podcast-news-roundup-1235123361/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">most popular podcast</a>, the Joe Rogan Experience.Rogan, a former ultimate fighting commentator and television presenter, has <a href="https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/joe-rogan-anti-vaccine-podcast-spotify-1234961803/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> healthy young people should not get a COVID vaccination. This is contrary to medical advice from governments all over the world, not to mention the <a href="https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">World Health Organization</a>.A recent episode of his podcast, featuring virologist Robert Malone, drew <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/14/spotify-joe-rogan-podcast-open-letter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticism from public health experts</a> over its various conspiracist claims about COVID vaccination programs.There were widespread calls for Spotify to deplatform Rogan and his interviewees. Rock legend Neil Young issued an ultimatum that Spotify could broadcast Rogan or Young, but not both.Spotify made its choice: the Joe Rogan Experience is still on the air, while Young’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/28/joe-rogan-neil-young-spotify-streaming-service" target="_blank" rel="noopener">music</a> is gone, along with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-29/joni-mitchell-take-songs-off-spotify-solidarity-with-neil-young/100790200" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joni Mitchell</a> and <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/nils-lofgren-spotify-neil-young-1292480/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nils Lofgren</a>, who removed their content in solidarity.Spotify’s responseSpotify co-founder Daniel Ek has since <a href="https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotifys-platform-rules-and-approach-to-covid-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promised</a> to tag controversial COVID-related content with links to a “hub” containing trustworthy information. But he stopped short of pledging to remove misinformation outright.In a statement, Ek <a href="https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotifys-platform-rules-and-approach-to-covid-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>:<blockquote>We know we have a critical role to play in supporting creator expression while balancing it with the safety of our users. In that role, it is important to me that we don’t take on the position of being content censor while also making sure that there are rules in place and consequences for those who violate them.</blockquote>Does it go far enough?Freedom of expression is important, but so is prevention of harm. When what is being advocated is likely to cause harm or loss of life, a line has been crossed. Spotify has a moral obligation to restrict speech that damages the public interest.In response to the controversy, Spotify also publicly shared its <a href="https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rules/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rules of engagement</a>. They are comprehensive and proactive in helping to make content creators aware of the lines that must not be crossed, while allowing for freedom of expression within these constraints. Has Spotify fulfilled its duty of care to customers? If it applies the rules as stated, provides listeners with links to trustworthy information, and refuses to let controversial yet profitable content creators off the hook, this is certainly a move in the right direction.Platform or publisher?At the crux of the problem is the question of whether social media providers are <a href="https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-media-companies-are-publishers-and-not-platforms-that-changes-everything/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">platforms or publishers</a>.Spotify and other Big Tech players claim they are simply providing a platform for people’s opinions. But <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/scott-morrison-says-social-media-platforms-are-publishers-if-unwilling-to-identify-users/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">regulators</a> are beginning to say no, they are in fact publishers of information, and like any publisher must be accountable for their content.<figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443600/original/file-20220201-19-1kyj1oy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="Logos of big tech platforms" /><figcaption>Tech platforms like to claim they’re not publishers. Pixabay, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CC BY</a></figcaption></figure>Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other platforms <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/06/01/addressing-big-techs-power-over-speech/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">have significant power</a> to promote particular views and limit others, thereby influencing millions or even <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/#:%7E:text=How%20many%20users%20does%20Facebook,the%20biggest%20social%20network%20worldwide." target="_blank" rel="noopener">billions</a> of users.In the United States, these platforms have immunity from civil and criminal liability under a <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1996 federal law</a> that shields them from liability as sites that host user-generated content. Being US corporations, their actions are primarily based on US legislation.It is an ingenious business model that allows Facebook, for example, to turn a steady stream of free user-posted content into <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/277963/facebooks-quarterly-global-revenue-by-segment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">US$28 billion in quarterly advertising revenue</a>.Established newspapers and magazines also sell advertising, but they pay journalists to write content and are legally liable for what they publish. It’s little wonder they are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/newspapers-journalists-coronavirus-press-democracy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struggling</a> to survive, and little wonder the tech platforms are keen to avoid similar responsibilities.But the fact is that social media companies do make editorial decisions about what appears on their platforms. So it is not morally defensible to hide behind the legal protections afforded to them as platforms, when they operate as publishers and reap considerable profits by doing so.How best to combat misinformation?Misinformation in the form of fake news, intentional disinformation and misinformed opinion has become a crucial issue for democratic systems around the world. How to combat this influence without compromising democratic values and free speech?One way is to cultivate “news literacy” – an ability to discern misinformation. This can be done by making a practice of sampling news from across the political spectrum, then averaging out the message to the moderate middle. Most of us confine ourselves to the echo chamber of our preferred source, avoiding contrary opinions as we go.If you are not sampling at least three reputable sources, you’re not getting the full picture. Here are the <a href="https://libguides.ucmerced.edu/news/reputable" target="_blank" rel="noopener">characteristics</a> of a reputable news source.Social media, meanwhile, should invest in artificial intelligence (AI) tools to sift the deluge of real-time content and flag potential fake news. Some progress in this area has been made, but there is room for improvement.The tide is turning for the big social media companies. Governments around the world are formulating laws that will oblige them to be more responsible for the content they publish. They won’t have long to wait.<img style="border: none !important;margin: 0 !important;max-height: 1px !important;max-width: 1px !important;min-height: 1px !important;min-width: 1px !important;padding: 0 !important" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176022/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-tuffley-13731" target="_blank" rel="noopener">David Tuffley</a>, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Griffith University</a>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/spotifys-response-to-rogan-gate-falls-short-of-its-ethical-and-editorial-obligations-176022" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>.Image: Getty Images

Technology

Who’s in? Who’s out? The ethics of COVID-19 travel rules

Omicron, the latest COVID-19 variant dubbed a “<a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern">variant of concern</a>” by the World Health Organization, has prompted <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/world/middleeast/israel-morocco-travel-bans-omicron.html">new travel restrictions in many nations</a>. Although little is known about omicron, scientists have expressed concern that it may be <a href="https://theconversation.com/omicron-why-the-who-designated-it-a-variant-of-concern-172727">more transmissible</a> or vaccine-resistant than previous variants. On Nov. 26, 2021, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/26/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-omicron-covid-19-variant/">the United States</a> joined <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/concerns-over-covid-variant-trigger-more-travel-curbs-southern-africa-2021-11-27/">a growing list of nations</a> banning travelers from countries in southern Africa, where the variant was first identified. The U.S. decision followed <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/noncitizens-US-air-travel.html">another recent change</a>, which went into effect on Nov. 8, 2021, requiring non-citizens entering the U.S. by plane to be fully vaccinated, with limited exceptions. Everyone entering by plane, including citizens, must provide a negative COVID-19 test. As bioethicists based in <a href="http://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/nancy-s-jecker-phd">the U.S.</a> and <a href="https://www.ug.edu.gh/phcl/staff/caesar-atuire">Ghana</a>, we explore the intersection of global health and ethics <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107555">in our research</a>. In the U.S. government’s recent rules for entry, we see far-reaching consequences that should prompt policymakers to consider not just science, but ethics. <h2>Buying time?</h2> There are multiple arguments to support travel rules imposing bans or requiring full vaccination. U.S. policy aims to “prevent further introduction, transmission, and spread of COVID-19 into and throughout the United States,” <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/10/25/a-proclamation-on-advancing-the-safe-resumption-of-global-travel-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/">President Joe Biden said</a> as he introduced the vaccination requirement. He noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “has determined that the best way to slow the spread of COVID-19, including preventing infection by the delta variant, is for individuals to get vaccinated.” Ethically, the reason to contain the spread is to protect health and save lives. It could be argued that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-021-10160-0">a country’s first duty is to keep its own people safe</a>. However, many countries manage to protect their people while building in flexibility, such as by testing and quarantining visitors in lieu of travel bans or strict vaccination requirements. France, for example, tailors requirements to infection rates. It considers the U.S. <a href="https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/coming-to-france/coronavirus-advice-for-foreign-nationals-in-france/">an “orange” country</a>, meaning unvaccinated Americans must show negative COVID-19 tests and self-isolate for seven days. One argument in favor of travel bans holds that they could slow the spread of the virus and buy time while scientists learn more. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. government’s top infectious disease advisor, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-braces-omicron-prepares-african-country-travel-ban-2021-11-28/">reportedly told the president</a> it would take two weeks to have definitive answers about omicron. A travel ban gives scientists <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/omicron-travel-bans-snap-defences-buy-time-as-scientists-race-to-decode-new-covid-variant-2626702">more time</a> to assess how well existing vaccines fare against new variants, and to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/26/pfizer-biontech-investigating-new-covid-variant-jj-testing-vaccine-against-it.html">begin reformulating vaccines</a> if needed. An ethical argument for vaccine requirements is that people should be held accountable for their choices, including refusing vaccination. Yet throughout much of the world, particularly poorer regions, people cannot access vaccines. On average, only 6% of people in low-income countries <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-people-vaccinated-covid?country=High+income%7EUpper+middle+income%7ELower+middle+income%7ELow+income">have received a dose</a> of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 74% in rich countries. <h2>Science in flux</h2> Critics of travel bans and vaccine requirements point out that such controls are hardly foolproof. There is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taab123">scant evidence</a> that travel restrictions reduce disease spread, particularly if they are not timed right and paired with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757">other prevention strategies</a>. Meanwhile, many studies have highlighted <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757">the negative consequences</a>of international travel restrictions, such as xenophobia and mental health concerns. Vaccines are currently highly effective at <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-many-lives-have-coronavirus-vaccines-saved-we-used-state-data-on-deaths-and-vaccination-rates-to-find-out-169513">preventing hospitalization and death</a>from COVID-19. But vaccinated people can <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-breakthrough-infection-6-questions-answered-about-catching-covid-19-after-vaccination-164909">still be infected</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html">transmit the virus</a>, although they are <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-vaccinated-people-are-not-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated-people-if-they-get-covid-171302">less likely</a> than unvaccinated people to be contagious, and less likely to get COVID-19 in the first place. Vaccines could also become less effective if <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8118153/">undercut by new virus variants</a>, though it is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03552-w">not yet clear</a> if omicron reduces vaccine efficacy. Finally, there is uncertainty about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02249-2">how long</a> vaccine protection lasts. Banning travelers in response to omicron is intended to keep people safe. But bans could backfire if they are seen as punitive, and could make countries <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/11/28/1059619823/omicron-travel-bans-covid">less likely to share information about new variants</a>. After South Africa reported the omicron variant, its health minister said travel bans had made the country <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/26/south-africa-slams-unjustified-travel-bans-omicron-coronavirus-variant">a scapegoat</a> for a “worldwide problem,” while the foreign ministry claimed, “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59442129">Excellent science should be applauded and not punished</a>.” Targeting African countries with travel bans “<a href="https://www.afro.who.int/news/who-stands-african-nations-and-calls-borders-remain-open">attacks global solidarity</a>,” the World Health Organization’s Africa director said in a statement. <h2>Health and justice</h2> Travel bans and vaccine rules also raise equity concerns, given the dramatic disparity in vaccination rates across the globe. Travel restrictions disproportionately impact people from low-income nations where few vaccines are available. It might appear that requiring vaccination for entry would not leave many people worse off, if people in poorer countries can rarely afford travel. Yet many people traveling to wealthier countries do so for jobs. Pre-pandemic, in 2019, the U.S. <a href="https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-temporary-foreign-worker-visa-programs">issued more than 900,000 work-eligible visas</a>. Many opponents of travel restrictions emphasize that new variants <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/26/new-covid-variant-rich-countries-hoarding-vaccines">are not surprising</a>, given how unequally vaccines have been distributed around the globe. When nations in southern Africa protested the new travel ban, they <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/27/world/africa/coronavirus-omicron-africa.html">pointed to previous warnings</a> that the delay in rolling out vaccinations there would <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/omicron-coronavirus-variant-what-we-know/620827/">increase the risk</a> of new variants. Equity concerns are intensified by wealthy nations’ partial responsibility for poorer nations’ difficulty accessing vaccines. Early in the pandemic, rich countries struck advance market agreements and secured <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01288-8">as much as 500%</a> of their predicted vaccine need, exacerbating global vaccine scarcity and bidding up prices. Wealthy nations pledged 1.8 billion doses of vaccine to low-income nations through COVAX, a global initiative to equitably distribute vaccines. Yet <a href="https://app.box.com/s/hk2ezb71vf0sla719jx34v0ehs0l22os">only 14% of them have been delivered</a>, according to <a href="https://peoplesvaccine.org/faq/">The People’s Vaccine</a>, an alliance calling for equal access to COVID-19 vaccines. [Research into coronavirus and other news from science <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-corona-research">Subscribe to The Conversation’s new science newsletter</a>.] Some ethicists have argued that governments should <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107491">hold off on vaccination requirements</a> for international travelers until there is more universal access to vaccines, or allow alternatives, such as testing or vaccination upon arrival. The U.S. vaccine requirement for visitors does make <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/order-safe-travel/technical-instructions.html">humanitarian exceptions</a> for travelers from countries where fewer than 10% of people are fully vaccinated. Still, it bars entry to people on a tourist or business visa, and citizens of many low- and middle-income nations where vaccination rates are low, but just above the bar. <h2>Do as I say, not as I do?</h2> The U.S. vaccination requirement also sounds hypocritical, because it does not apply to Americans. Unvaccinated citizens are allowed to reenter the country with a negative test result. Though free COVID-19 vaccines are widely available, <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations">just 58% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated</a>. In addition, U.S. rules exclude unvaccinated foreigners from countries with far lower COVID-19 rates. The U.S. has about 210 confirmed <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases">cases per million people</a>, but excludes unvaccinated people from countries including India (6 per million), Paraguay (8 per million), Cambodia (2 per million) and Zimbabwe (3 per million), although <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing">lack of testing</a> may contribute to low case counts. In our research, we argue global health can be protected by more equitable methods, like <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107824">following the WHO’s recommendation</a> to delay booster shots until 10% of people in every nation have received first shots; expanding vaccine manufacturing through <a href="https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/06/medethics-2021-107824">waiving vaccine patents</a>; and showing <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1250">solidarity in the global distribution of vaccines</a> by prioritizing countries with low ability to obtain vaccines. Ultimately, the best way for wealthy nations to protect their own citizens is to vaccinate people across the globe. “If the variant shows up anywhere in the world, you can pretty much count on it being everywhere in the world,” as infectious disease specialist <a href="https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/about-us/cidrap-staff/michael-t-osterholm-phd-mph">Michael Osterholm</a> told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/26/us/us-officials-are-consulting-with-south-african-scientists-on-the-variant.html">the New York Times</a>. Vaccinating more people reduces the chance of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr2105280">new variants appearing that are impervious to vaccines</a>. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared in <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/whos-in-whos-out-the-ethics-of-covid-19-travel-rules-172053" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Travel Tips

Hunter Biden’s art venture poses ethical headache for the White House

Hunter Biden has unveiled his first art collection in a New York gallery, which is an impressive feat for someone with no formal artistic training. With his passion for art previously kept secret from the rest of the world, Hunter has burst onto the scene with his artworks that are attracting mildly favourable reviews, and are anticipated to sell for tens of thousands of dollars. Despite the early success of Hunter’s collection with the <a href="https://bergesgallery.com/our-artists/hunter-biden">Georges Bergès Gallery</a>, his venture into the art world has posed a series of quandaries for the lawyers of his father, President Joe Biden. Lawyers were first concerned when there appeared to be no recommended retail price for an original painting. Instead, a buyer would make an offer and the dealer chooses whether to accept or decline. So, while President Biden would be unable to accept a briefcase full of a million dollars as a donation, someone would instead be able to offer the same sum for one of his son’s paintings. Walter Shaub, who headed the Office of Government Ethics under the Obama Administration, was outraged by the younger Biden's venture into art. "There is no ethics program in the world that can be built around the head of state's staff working with a dealer to keep the public in the dark about the identities of individuals who pay vast sums to the leader's family member for subjectively priced items of no intrinsic value," he tweeted. "If this were Trump, Xi or Putin, you'd have no doubt whatsoever that this creates a vehicle for funnelling cash to the first family in exchange for access or favours." However, thanks to the White House’s new ethics rules, if someone offers a suspiciously high figure for a painting, Hunter’s art dealer Georges Bergès will turn down the offer. On top of this, Georges would keep the identity of any buyer secret from Hunter Biden or the White House. Mr Bergès told <a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/hunter-biden-gallery-show-1979790">Artnet News</a> that he expected some of Mr Biden's pieces to sell for as much as half a million dollars, and although Hunter has agreed to abide by the White House ethics rules, he is not legally bound to them. Image credits: Georges Bergès Gallery

Art

Is a trip to Mars ethical?

<div class="copy"> For the 21st century explorer Mars would have to be the number one travel destination. If that’s you, you might try your luck with Mars One, a privately funded mission to colonise Mars led by Dutch entrepreneur Bars Landsorp. If you’re selected, it’s a seventh-month one-way only trip. The first four human volunteers are scheduled to blast off in 2026 in the hope of setting up a colony. Scientists, engineers and others in the space industry say the mission is not feasible. But it is the ethics of the enterprise that concern me here. Some years ago I was among a group of bioethicists asked to ponder the morality of sending humans into space for several months or years. At the time NASA was considering the idea of sending astronauts to Mars – with no real way of organising a flight home. (Since then NASA has developed plans for a three-year return trip to Mars in 2035.) I told NASA that exploration in situations of terrifying and serious risk was not new. Asking if human long-duration space flight is ethical means asking the same questions that Englishman Robert Falcon Scott should have asked before setting out on his doomed mission to the South Pole. What are the technical constraints and what needs to be invented? What preparedness is needed and what is the cost? What information is needed for the crew to consent? History tells us that Scott arrived at the Pole a month after Roald Amundsen claimed it for Norway. Scott died along with his entire company on the way home. They were hopelessly unprepared – taking French olives and raspberry jam and inadequate gloves. Amundsen by contrast learned survival skills from peoples who lived in the Arctic before setting out. Scott’s example teaches us that bravery is not enough: realistic preparation is crucial. The risks of long-haul human space flight have been known for years. In 2002 a NASA committee wrote a list. These included the health hazards posed by space radiation; the possibility that the crew could sabotage the mission – based on studies of isolated communities and the psycho-social issues that can arise; physiological risk, including bone and muscle loss in microgravity; and medical risk – including the difficulties of treating injuries and illness in space. Several years later, all these factors remain. The Canadians, the European Union and the Japanese conducted studies of their own and reached the same conclusion. Space is the harshest possible human environment, exceeding conditions anywhere on the planet. Crucially, more is unknown about the physical and mental challenges of space travel than is known. Assessing risk in a situation of utter unknowability is complicated. In the face of this uncertainty risk analysts have put forward the RABA concept (Risk Associated with the Best Alternative). A bad outcome of the best considered alternative might be easier to accept than charging in like Scott without adequately considering the risks. But there are limits to rational arguments about the risks of space colonisation: we don’t know what we don’t know. So what makes risk ethical? Historically it has been one thing: consent. The ethical considerations change if we think of the crew as military personnel. We expect soldiers to face considerable risk. And think of the pioneers who travelled to remote and desolate places with no thought of return. So what did I advise NASA? Exploring space is an awesome enterprise – but it has to be done at awesome cost. The process has to protect the astronauts as much as possible. The mission must be done publicly for peaceful purposes, by free people, with the results considered common stock. But before we set out we need a far-reaching public discussion of what space travel means to us – and what we are prepared to sacrifice for it. Image credits: Shutterstock </div> <div id="contributors"> This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/is-a-trip-to-mars-ethical/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Laurie Zoloth. </div>

Travel Tips

Maggie Beer hailed for "ethical" move

Maggie Beer Holdings, formerly Longtable Group, has proved why it’s an Aussie favourite: by returning the $825,000 it was given by the federal government as part of the JobKeeper program during the pandemic. In September, it became mandatory for publicly listed companies to disclose their wage subsidies, as well as if repayments had been made. On Tuesday, it was revealed that Maggie Beer Holdings, a company that consists of four brands: Maggie Beer, Paris Creek Farms, Saint David Dairy and Hampers & Gifts Australia, had been given $825,000 during the 2020-21 fiscal year that has been paid back in its entirety. Speaking to NCA Newswire, Labor MP Andrew Leigh congratulated Maggie Beer and her company for the move, saying, "Maggie Beer has demonstrated admirable corporate citizenship by voluntarily handing back JobKeeper support that it didn't need. "No one will ever be forced to repay JobKeeper, but it's terrific to see firms like Maggie Beer doing the right thing." He added, "I'll be buying some extra Maggie Beer products as Christmas gifts, and I'm sure many shoppers will likewise choose to reward their ethical decision." In addition to heading up a company trying to navigate the pandemic, in 2020 Maggie Beer had to deal with the passing of her beloved daughter Saskia at the age of 46. Speaking to The Weekly last November, Beer said she was “taken aback” by the number of people paying their respects. "It was something that was so extreme – in the numbers of people and the real understanding of Saskia's contribution. She had done so much in that short life. The support was huge and wonderful and really unbelievable." From 30 March to 27 September 2020, eligible businesses were able to receive $1500 per fortnight per employee to cover the cost of wages, in an effort to help keep businesses afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many companies have been criticised for keeping the money paid to them by the government during this time despite making a profit during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years. Maggie Beer is known for producing picnic favourites like the Maggie Beer pate, quince paste, and truffle triple cream brie, as well as gourmet ice cream. Paris Creek Farms produces organic dairy products including butter, yoghurt, milk, and cheese. Saint David Dairy, based in Fitzroy, produces similar products, and aims to “bring the small local dairy back to the streets of Inner Melbourne.” Hampers & Gifts Australia consists of The Hamper Emporium, which specialises in premium gift hampers, and Gifts Australia, which focuses on on-trend gifts. Image: Robert Prezioso/Getty Images

Money & Banking

Acting selfishly has consequences right now – why ethical decision making is imperative in the coronavirus crisis

As the country moves into lockdown mode in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are increasingly faced with serious ethical questions about what ordinary people should be obliged to do for others. These challenges can perhaps best be seen in the outrage as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-21/bondi-beach-closed-over-crowds-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/12077618">people flocked to Bondi Beach</a> and packed into <a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-fury-as-people-ignore-social-distancing-advice-flock-to-beaches-pubs-cafes/news-story/f7eb3fdb923a63a9ff5c5981654b8077">pubs and cafes</a> over the weekend, despite strict social-distancing rules. This also helps explain the anger on social media over people <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/lives-at-risk-as-victorians-lie-about-overseas-travel-in-order-to-see-gps-20200318-p54bdg.html">lying about overseas travel in order to get doctors’ appointments</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-plenty-of-toilet-paper-so-why-are-people-hoarding-it-133300">hoarding toilet paper</a> and <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-police-arrest-covid-19-1.5505349">defying quarantine orders</a>, even as they <a href="https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/an-australian-woman-breached-coronavirus-quarantine-in-beijing-to-go-for-a-jog--and-lost-her-job-c-755123">defend their conduct self-righteously</a>. People are even being <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/coronavirus-social-etiquette-in-the-age-of-covid19/news-story/f7218797a49a7731a72c9230293ab3c9">met with disdain when they ask others to keep their distance</a>. A coronavirus cautionary tale from Italy: Don’t do what we did Many of us were too selfish to follow suggestions to change our behavior. Now we’re in lockdown and people are needlessly dying. <a href="https://t.co/N43ZxSUVBo">https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/13/opinion/coronavirus-cautionary-tale-italy-dont-do-what-we-did/ …</a> Why is ethical action critical? In the face of a pandemic, legislation and police enforcement can only do so much. <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/fatigue-will-be-the-carrier-of-the-second-coronavirus-wave/articleshow/74725529.cms?from=mdr">Ethical decision-making by ordinary people becomes crucial</a>. While laws and policies <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-the-laws-mandating-self-isolation-and-how-will-they-be-enforced-133757">can be slow to evolve</a>, individuals can alter their behaviours instantaneously. Rules and bans can be ham-fisted or crude, but ethical decision-makers can respond intelligently to their own contexts. Above all, ethical decision-makers can be intrinsically motivated to do right by the community, ensuring compliance of social-distancing rules in situations where effective policing is logistically impossible. Even as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-23/victoria-covid-19-coronavirus-shutdown/12080132">announced a special taskforce</a> to enforce an immediate shutdown of venues and restrictions on gatherings, he appealed to people’s consciences in the strongest terms: If you act selfishly, people will die. This is why leaders have called for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/17/how-australia-will-enforce-coronavirus-self-isolation-rules-for-overseas-arrivals">voluntary cooperation</a> during the crisis. Laws and political action alone will not save us. An effective response to the pandemic requires ordinary people making sound ethical decisions. Why is this so challenging? As we’ve seen from the images over the weekend, ethical decision-making in response to a pandemic is not easy. Many people are simply not taking the crisis seriously enough. One of the reasons for this is confusion. Rules change almost daily, meaning some people won’t know the latest requirements. Others might not appreciate the stakes involved with their behaviours, and that it is not only their own health they are risking. Also, rules can be ambiguous. For example, what happens if you’re <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-21/bondi-beach-closed-over-crowds-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/12077618">keeping an appropriate distance from others</a> at the beach or park, and it starts becoming crowded? Who should leave? Should those who arrived first have priority? Or should those who have had “their turn” move on? In ambiguous situations, people take cues from those around them. If we saw others interacting normally at the park or pub (before they were closed), we could conclude it’s probably okay. We might also wonder if there’s any point in obeying the rules if others aren’t. Furthermore, it’s easy to question the legitimacy of the new rules. Ordinarily, <a href="https://news.griffith.edu.au/2019/09/09/the-threats-and-promises-of-multidimensional-legitimacy/">we judge rules based on many factors</a>, such as: <ul> <li>Is it the right thing to do?</li> <li>Is it fair?</li> <li>Will it be effective?</li> </ul> In fluid situations, these conditions are hard to meet. Consider the case of <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-sick-leave-were-not-much-better-prepared-for-coronavirus-than-the-us-133231">casual workers with no paid sick leave</a> who might not be able to pay rent or might lose their jobs if they comply with quarantine orders. Demanding they shoulder this burden can seem unfair. Similarly, many <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-australia-is-not-putting-teachers-in-the-coronavirus-firing-line-their-risk-is-very-low-134021">teachers feel they are taking unfair risks</a> to keep schools open. In the most difficult cases, people must weigh up conflicting moral priorities. Do they support their elderly parents by visiting them, or is this risking infection? For these reasons, even conscientious ethical decision-makers can struggle. Why we might make poor decisions Unfortunately, human beings suffer from decision-making biases. For example, we often <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354302012003015">interpret expectations as entitlements</a>. We convert our ordinary expectations about social, work, educational, religious and sporting routines into demands that these should continue. This is one reason why <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/20/america-needs-be-war-footing/">some call for a “war footing”</a>, urging people to acknowledge a “new normal”. In addition, people tend to be self-interested and prioritise immediate goals. Abstract concerns about risks to community infection can seem less salient than the pressures of the moment. This bias can affect ethical decision-making. It allows us to “<a href="https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2008/10/techniques-of-n.html">neutralise</a>” rules by inventing stories about why they don’t apply to us, given our special circumstances. These self-serving excuses are a classic source of serious moral error. Some guidelines to follow There are no easy answers to the myriad moral challenges that COVID-19 thrusts upon us. However, here are five rules of thumb: <ol> <li>Common sense ethics still applies – and the stakes make it more important than ever. Never lie about or conceal your history or infection status. Comply strictly with authoritative directives about quarantine.</li> <li>Stay informed about the latest rules.</li> <li>Never force your decisions on other people. Even if you aren’t personally concerned about social distancing, acknowledge that others are entitled to their space.</li> <li>If others are behaving recklessly or inappropriately, try to engage with them constructively. Outrage can be appropriate, but <a href="https://theconversation.com/actually-its-ok-to-disagree-here-are-5-ways-we-can-argue-better-121178">understanding can be better at changing minds</a>.</li> <li>Gird yourself for the long haul. “<a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/fatigue-will-be-the-carrier-of-the-second-coronavirus-wave/articleshow/74725529.cms?from=mdr">Fatigue</a>” can set in over long periods with changing rules. As the weeks in a state of emergency turn into months, we can be worn down and become less diligent in our ethical decision-making.</li> </ol> Finally, remember the positives. As the stakes rise, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/21/like-an-emotional-mexican-wave-how-coronavirus-kindness-makes-the-world-seem-smaller">acts of kindness and support</a> are more important than ever before. Written by Hugh Breakey. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/acting-selfishly-has-consequences-right-now-why-ethical-decision-making-is-imperative-in-the-coronavirus-crisis-134350">The Conversation.</a>

Cruising

Riding on the kangaroo’s back: Animal skin fashion, exports and ethical trade

The Versace fashion house recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/versace-bans-kangaroo-skin-after-pressure-from-animal-activists">announced</a> it had stopped using kangaroo skins in its fashion collections after coming under pressure from animal rights group <a href="https://www.lav.it/en">LAV</a>. Kangaroo meat and skin has an annual production <a href="http://www.kangarooindustry.com/industry/economic/">value</a> of around A$174 million, with skins used in the fashion and shoe manufacturing industries. There are legitimate questions regarding the ethical manner in which kangaroos are killed. But Indigenous people have long utilised the skins of kangaroos and possums. Versace’s concerns may have been allayed by understanding more about our traditions and practices. Reviving skills There has always been concern around how native animals are treated while alive and how they are killed to cause as little distress, pain and suffering as possible. Campaigners say <a href="https://www.lav.it/en/news/australia-versace-kangaroos">2.3 million</a> kangaroos in Australia are hunted each year. Official <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/natives/wild-harvest/kangaroo-wallaby-statistics/kangaroo-2000">sources</a> cite this figure as the national quota, but put the number actually killed at around 1.7 million. Australian Aboriginal people have for many thousands of years utilised native animals, predominantly kangaroos and possums. Consciously and sustainably, every part of the animal was used. The kangaroo meat was eaten, the skins used to make cloaks for wearing, teeth used to make needles, sinew from the tail used as thread. The cloaks were incised with designs on the skin side significant to the wearer representing their totems, status and kinship. Cloaks were made for babies and added to as the child grew into adulthood, and people were buried in their <a href="https://www.nationalquiltregister.org.au/aboriginal-skin-cloaks/">cloaks</a>when they died. Aboriginal women from New South Wales and Victoria have begun <a href="https://sydney.edu.au/museums/images/content/exhibitions-events/where-we-all-meet/djon-mundine-essay-sectioned.pdf">reviving</a> the tradition of kangaroo and possum skin cloak-making to pass down knowledge of this important practice to future generations. Interestingly, possum skins can only be purchased from New Zealand for these crafts. As an introduced species, they have wreaked havoc on NZ animal populations and the environment, but are a protected species in Australia. Culls and trade In Australia, kangaroos are not farmed but are harvested for meat and fur in the wild under a voluntary <a href="https://www.viva.org.uk/under-fire/cruelty-kangaroos">code of conduct</a>. The code is difficult to monitor and enforcement is <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/thinkk_production/resources/29/Kangaroo_Court_Enforcement_of_the_law_governing_commercial_kangaroo_killing_.pdf">complicated</a> by federal and state sharing of responsibility. This code is currently under <a href="https://www.agrifutures.com.au/kangaroo-commercial-code-review/">review</a>. The export and import of wildlife is <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/natives">regulated</a> under Australia’s national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Act. In practice, kangaroos are shot in the wild by professional licensed shooters with an intended single shot to the head to kill them quickly. There are <a href="http://thinkkangaroos.uts.edu.au/issues/welfare-and-enforcement.html">concerns</a> over whether shooters should be trained better and whether nighttime shoots with poor visibility result in the killing of alpha males or mothers with joeys in their pouches. If mothers are accidentally shot, the code dictates the joey should be shot too. Sometimes the shot does not kill them instantly and they are then clubbed over the head. Traditionally, Aboriginal people speared kangaroos. This was unlikely to kill them instantly, so they were swiftly killed with a blow to the head by a boondi(wooden club). Why kangaroo? Kangaroo skin is extremely strong and more flexible than other leathers, including cow hide. It is routinely used in the production of soccer boots as they mould to the feet extremely well and don’t need to be worn in like harder leathers. This has led to an <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-07-12/kangaroo-skin-hits-fashion-capitals/1799602">increase</a> in the use of kangaroo. LAV <a href="https://www.lav.it/en/news/australian-fire-our-actions-to-save-animals">reports</a> Italy is the biggest importer of kangaroo leather in Europe, where it is used to produce soccer shoes and motorbike suits. They are <a href="https://www.lav.it/en/news/australian-fire-our-actions-to-save-animals">lobbying</a> brands Lotto and Dainese to stop using kangaroo, arguing that shooting animals is not sustainable given the estimated <a href="https://theconversation.com/bushfires-left-millions-of-animals-dead-we-should-use-them-not-just-bury-them-129787">1 billion</a> creatures killed in bushfires this season. In terms of environmental sustainability, kangaroos cause less damage to the environment than cattle. Cows contribute methane gas, their hard hooves destroy the earth, they eat the grass to a point that it does not regenerate. Kangaroos eat the grass leaving a small portion to re-flourish, they bounce across the land without causing damage to it, and don’t produce methane gases. The use of kangaroo skins in fashion can be done ethically if the code is reviewed in consultation with Aboriginal people and enforced properly. The industry has the <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/EA03248">potential</a> to produce and support sustainable business opportunities for Aboriginal communities. While celebrities are <a href="https://www.idausa.org/campaign/wild-animals-and-habitats/fur/latest-news/kardashians-shamed-among-10-worst-celebrities-fur-animals/">shamed</a> for wearing fur fashion, this relates to the unregulated and inhumane treatment of coyotes, chinchillas, foxes, mink, rabbits, and other fur-bearing animals. In contrast, scientists <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/EA03248">consider</a> kangaroo harvest as “one of the few rural industry development options with potential to provide economic return with minimal environmental impact”. Only natural Versace, along with most fashion retailers across the high-end to ready-to-wear spectrum, use synthetic fibres in their fashion products. Such materials eventually <a href="https://theconversation.com/time-to-make-fast-fashion-a-problem-for-its-makers-not-charities-117977">cause more damage</a> to the environment than natural fibres and skins. They don’t biodegrade and many of these fibres end up in landfill, our oceans or in the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749119348808">stomachs of fish</a>. Animal skins will always be used in fashion and other products because of the unique properties the skins bring to design and function. While the bushfires have killed millions of Australian native animals, kangaroo culls are managed to have limited impact on the population. We should focus our energy on saving Australian native animals that are <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-bushfires-could-drive-more-than-700-animal-species-to-extinction-check-the-numbers-for-yourself-129773">close to extinction</a> and lobbying for a stricter ethical code for shooters that can be legally enforced to ensure kangaroos are killed humanely. Written by Dr Fabri Blacklock. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/riding-on-the-kangaroos-back-animal-skin-fashion-exports-and-ethical-trade-130207">The Conversation.</a>

Beauty & Style

5 ways we can argue better

Argument is everywhere. From the kitchen table to the boardroom to the highest echelons of power, we all use argument to persuade, investigate new ideas, and make collective decisions. Unfortunately, we often fail to consider the ethics of arguing. This makes it perilously easy to mistreat others — a critical concern in personal relationships, workplace decision-making and political deliberation. The norms of argument Everyone understands there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">basic norms</a> we <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Systematic_Theory_of_Argumentation.html?id=DfMih3LWVBYC&redir_esc=y">should follow when arguing</a>. Logic and commonsense dictate that, when deliberating with others, we should be open to their views. We should listen carefully and try to understand their reasoning. And while we can’t all be Socrates, we should do our best to respond to their thoughts with clear, rational and relevant arguments. Since the time of <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html">Plato</a>, these <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0">norms have been defended</a> on what philosophers call “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884">epistemic</a>” grounds. This means the norms are valuable because they promote knowledge, insight and self-understanding. What “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-teach-all-students-to-think-critically-35331">critical thinking</a>” is to internal thought processes, these “norms of argument” are to interpersonal discussion and deliberation. Why ‘ethical’ arguing is important In a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1637776">recent article,</a> I contend that these norms of argument are also morally important. Sometimes this is obvious. For example, norms of argument can overlap with commonsense ethical principles, like honesty. Deliberately misrepresenting a person’s view is wrong because it involves knowingly saying something false. More importantly, but less obviously, being reasonable and open-minded ensures we treat our partners in argument in a consensual and reciprocal way. During arguments, people open themselves up to attaining worthwhile benefits, like understanding and truth. If we don’t “play by the rules”, we can frustrate this pursuit. Worse, if we change their minds by misleading or bamboozling them, this can amount to the serious wrongs of <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40237210?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">manipulation or intimidation</a>. Instead, obeying the norms of argument shows respect for our partners in argument as intelligent, rational individuals. It acknowledges they can change their minds based on reason. This matters because <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5">rationality is an important part of people’s humanity</a>. Being “endowed with reason” is lauded in the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> to support its fundamental claim that humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Obeying the norms of argument also has good effects on our character. Staying open-minded and genuinely considering contrary views helps us learn more about our own beliefs. As philosopher <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/">John Stuart Mill observed</a>, <blockquote> He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. </blockquote> This open-mindedness helps us combat the moral perils of <a href="https://psychologenie.com/concept-of-group-polarization-in-psychology-explained">bias and groupthink</a>. What’s more, the norms of argument aren’t just good for individuals, they are also good for groups. They allow conflicts and collective decisions to be approached in a respectful, inclusive way, rather than forcing an agreement or <a href="https://theconversation.com/comic-how-to-have-better-arguments-about-the-environment-or-anything-else-98554">escalating the conflict</a>. Indeed, arguments can make collectives. Two arguers, over time, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282544990_What_Virtue_Argumentation_Theory_Misses_The_Case_of_Compathetic_Argumentation">can collectively achieve a shared intellectual creation</a>. As partners in argument, they define terms, acknowledge areas of shared agreement, and mutually explore each other’s reasons. They do something together. All this accords with everyday experience. Many of us have enjoyed the sense of respect when our views have been welcomed, heard and seriously considered. And all of us know what it feels like to have our ideas dismissed, misrepresented or caricatured. Why we have trouble arguing calmly Unfortunately, being logical, reasonable and open-minded is easier said than done. When we argue with others, their arguments will inevitably call into question our beliefs, values, experience and competence. These challenges are not easy to face calmly, especially if the topic is one we care about. This is because we like to think of ourselves as <a href="https://positivepsychology.com/self-efficacy/">effective and capable</a>, rather than mistaken or misguided. We also care about our <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?__s=goqjzsqdzqpwcb7jc8de">social standing</a> and like to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/changepower/201808/11-ways-project-confidence-and-be-taken-seriously">project confidence</a>. In addition, we suffer from <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586162">confirmation bias</a>, so we actively avoid evidence that we are wrong. Finally, we may have material stakes riding on the argument’s outcome. After all, one of the main reasons we engage in argument is to get our way. We want to convince others to do what we want and follow our lead. All this means that when someone challenges our convictions, we are psychologically predisposed to hit back hard. Worse still, our capacity to evaluate whether our opponents are obeying the norms of argument is poor. All the psychological processes mentioned above don’t just make it hard to argue calmly and reasonably. They also trick us into <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417084524.htm">mistakenly thinking our opponents are being illogical</a>, making us feel as if it’s them, and not us, who’s failing to argue properly. How should we navigate the moral complexity of arguing? Arguing morally isn’t easy, but here are five tips to help: <ol> <li> Avoid thinking that when someone starts up an argument, they are mounting an attack. To adapt a saying by <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/oscar_wilde_128481">Oscar Wilde</a>, there is only one thing in the world worse than being argued with, and that is not being argued with. Reasoned argument acknowledges a person’s rationality, and that their opinion matters. </li> <li> There is always more going on in any argument than who wins and who loses. In particular, the relationship between the two arguers can be at stake. Often, the real prize is demonstrating respect, even as we disagree. </li> <li> Don’t be too quick to judge your opponent’s standards of argument. There’s a good chance you’ll succumb to “<a href="https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn">defensive reasoning</a>”, where you’ll use all your intelligence to find fault with their views, instead of genuinely reflecting on what they are saying. Instead, try and work with them to clarify their reasoning. </li> <li> Never assume that others aren’t open to intelligent argument. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/lets-argue-communicative-action-in-world-politics/F785E45F33231B4E600F97281BA5A6A3">History is littered</a> with examples of people genuinely changing their minds, even in the most high stakes environments imaginable. </li> <li> It’s possible for both sides to “lose” an argument. The recently announced <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-question-time-becomes-political-theatre-does-it-still-play-a-vital-role-in-government-121177">inquiry into question time in parliament</a> provides a telling example. Even as the government and opposition strive to “win” during this daily show of political theatre, the net effect of their appalling standards is that everyone’s reputation suffers. </li> </ol> The upshot There is a saying in applied ethics that the worst ethical decisions you’ll ever make are the ones you don’t recognise as ethical decisions. So, when you find yourself in the thick of argument, do your best to remember what’s morally at stake. Otherwise, there’s a risk you might lose a lot more than you win.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121178/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Written by Hugh Breakey, Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith University. Republished with permission of <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/actually-its-ok-to-disagree-here-are-5-ways-we-can-argue-better-121178" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Relationships

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Pay-by-weight airfares are an ethical minefield. We asked travellers what they actually think

5 ways to make Christmas lunch more ethical this year

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

Ethical non-monogamy: what to know about these often misunderstood relationships

The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value?

The ethics of home ownership in an age of growing inequality

There’s a serious ethical problem with some sunscreen testing methods – and you’re probably not aware of it

"I can only do so much": we asked fast-fashion shoppers how ethical concerns shape their choices

We know sweatshop clothing is bad – and buy it anyway. Here’s how your brain makes excuses

Saving for retirement gives you power, and ethical responsibilities

AI recruitment tools are “automated pseudoscience” says Cambridge researchers

Plagiarism, John Hughes’ The Dogs and the ethical responsibilities of the novelist

Spotify’s response to Rogan-gate falls short of its ethical and editorial obligations

Who’s in? Who’s out? The ethics of COVID-19 travel rules

Hunter Biden’s art venture poses ethical headache for the White House

Is a trip to Mars ethical?

Maggie Beer hailed for "ethical" move

Acting selfishly has consequences right now – why ethical decision making is imperative in the coronavirus crisis

Riding on the kangaroo’s back: Animal skin fashion, exports and ethical trade

5 ways we can argue better

Our Partners